Hi Willow,
We've been using RST/Sphinx for the GNU Taler documentation, and it can
generate reasonable TeXinfo. From that experience, I'm not against
converting the existing documentation to RST.
As far as finding the documentation, I think you found most of it,
except maybe the RFC-style specs at https://lsd.gnunet.org/.
The handbook is supposed to cover things in depth, with different
chapters for installation (for the various platforms), users (by
application, explaining what each application can do and how to use it)
and developers (by subsystem, explaining how each subsystem is supposed
to work). The man-pages are supposed to be for the day-to-day usage when
someone wants to quickly look up command-line options. The doxygen is
for function-level documentation for developers-only. The tutorial is
for newbie-developers, and is a bit dated. Finally, the LSDs are
in-depth protocol descriptions for those wanting to do interoperable
(re)implementations.
I hope that answers your questions and look forward to you improving the
documentation!
Happy hacking!
Christian
On 5/20/22 02:21, Willow Liquorice wrote:
I've got some free time on my hands now, and I gave some thought to
improving the readability of the HTML documentation on the website
(which is what the average prospective GNUnet dev is going to look at).
Read the Docs and friends set the standard in this regard. Having the
contents in a sidebar for easy access (regardless of your location)
would be far more convenient than what's currently available.
I understand that TeXinfo's HTML generation is a bit simplistic in the
name of compatibility, which, while not a bad thing, results in a subpar
reading experience for the average dev who will, in all likelihood, be
reading the docs on a very capable modern browser.
While thinking about how to improve things with TeXinfo, it occurred to
me that, instead of trying to emulate the experience of using Read the
Docs, one could just use Read the Docs! It's Free Software, after all. I
haven't looked into it too deeply, but if the .texi sources are
converted to the reStructuredText that it accepts, a migration (or use
of a similar platform) might be worth considering. What do the people
here think?
If I'm going to dedicate time to restructuring GNUnet's docs, I need to
know where it all is. I've found four strands of docs in the repository
(Handbook, Tutorial, Doxygen, and man pages), could someone give me a
run-down of the state they're in, how they relate to one another, and
what they're supposed to be for? Is that everything?
Thanks,
Willow
On 01/03/2022 22:52, Christian Grothoff wrote:
Spam killed this. We already constantly have to delete 'bug reports'
from the Web that were submitted as link spam. A wiki will drain
resources to keep the spammers out, and at the same time experience says
the contributions will be low quality (it has been tried).
If someone really is capable and invests time into contributing to
documentation, they can pick up Git and send patches.
On 3/1/22 11:12 PM, madmurphy wrote:
I don't know if this will be a popular proposal, but I really believe
that setting up a self-hosted Wiki could be a very good choice. No
complicate git clone, no complaints, just read/edit what you need, and
distributed responsibilities about its design and direction.
My two cents
