21 Apr
2009
21 Apr
'09
11:20 a.m.
On 21-04 11:11, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Jan Janak writes:
I don't understand this. In both cases it is xml based docbook. The structure
of a docbook document is given. The fact that there are more files with
boilerplate in modules coming from ser does not make it that much different.
Jan.
I certainly agree with the idea that all new
stuff should be
documented, but I wonder whether we should revisit the system we
write documentation in? I am personaly fine with docbook.
in k we want to keep the tradition that ALL modules are fully
documented. we don't accept a module or a new function in a module,
unless it is fully documented. the system that is used to write the
docs must be such that we can generate the doc at least as as txt and
html. we have made a huge effort to write the readmes as they currently
are. unless there is an automatic means to change their format, the
format cannot be changed, i.e., manual change is out of question.
regarding common modules, before this project is announced to public,
there thus needs to be k style documentation of all of them.
perhaps it was not a good idea to try to merge the modules after all if
also documentation style is different in k and s, because we need to
have two doc subdirs in all of them (one for k and another for s).