On 21-04 11:11, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Jan Janak writes:
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).
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.