On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-ge...@telenet.be> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2014 15:11:59 John Ralls wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger > > <frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am 04.09.2014 um 16:26 schrieb John Ralls: > > >> Just like Carsten you missed the point that the *design* > > >> documentation doesn't and can't live in the code files and isn't > > >> part > > >> of writing a patch. > > > > > > Just for completeness: > > > There is a bunch of texi files in src/doc/design. > > > - But > > > https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commits/master/src/doc/design > > > shows only sparse updates after 2001. > > > - And Intro starts with "This whole document is completely outdated. > > > Don't read this. All function names and every described structure > > > has > > > changed completely. Only read this if you want to know how gnucash > > > looked like in 1999. This is completely outdated!" > > > > > > So, I agree, mediawiki texts are today easier to maintain than > > > texinfo files. Perhaps we should replace the content of this > > > directory with a file containing pointers to the respective wiki > > > pages. > > > > > > But we should add somewhere in the doxygen linked readme files > > > - A sketch of the modules, their purpose and relations > > > > Better done in the master header file for each module than in separate > > “read me” files, but the problem is keeping them current. > > > - Explanation of namespaces gnc_, qof_, xacc_, … > > YES PLEASE !!! > Yes what? Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
