Hi,
qemu did this a while back it seems
On 5/24/22 22:38, Willow Liquorice wrote:
As an aside, *does anyone know of any tools to convert TeXinfo to
reST*? This migration is going to be much smoother if there are.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20200226113034.6741-19-pbonz...@redhat.com/
- Willow
On 24/05/2022 18:01, Christian Grothoff wrote:
The doxygen configuration file in Git just had an ancient version
number. I've fixed that now. The rest was up-to-date ;-).
-Christian
On 5/23/22 16:24, Willow Liquorice wrote:
Just look at https://docs.gnunet.org/doxygen/html/index.html and you'll
see what I mean.
- Willow
On 23/05/2022 15:23, Christian Grothoff wrote:
I cannot even find a version number on https://docs.gnunet.org/, so
that's likely not what you are refering to. So where exactly are
you looking to find documentation for 0.11.x? Likely some code to
update some location is not working (or was never written, and
someone put something out manually...).
-Christian
On 5/23/22 16:16, Willow Liquorice wrote:
Alright, doc/sphinx it is.
The handbook is already intended for two wildly different
audiences, what with being both a user's and developer's manual.
Having the source code documentation in one place (and possibly
better organised) might make it easier to work with, and help keep
the Developer's Manual up-to-date.
On another note, are the online source docs even up to date? The
indicated version on them is 0.11.x, which is several years gone
at this point.
Best wishes,
Willow
On 23/05/2022 08:39, Christian Grothoff wrote:
On 5/23/22 00:57, Willow Liquorice wrote:
Hello again,
Thanks for the info, good to hear that I've got most of it.
Setting up a branch in my local GNUnet repository, to start
experimenting with Sphinx, as I write this. Seeing as there's
some experience with the software in the project already, where
would be the most sensible place to put the root directory? My
thinking is either the repository root or the doc folder.
Definitively doc/, I think doc/sphinx/ would be good.
Would it be sensible to migrate to Sphinx throughout the whole
GNUnet repository? Breathe (https://www.breathe-doc.org/) could
very well make the transition easy, as I think it would allow us
to read the Doxygen comments that are already present in the
source code.
I'm not sure importing the Doxygen makes sense, that's very
different from the main handbook/tutorial/man-pages both in terms
of style and audience.
my 2 cents
Christian
Best wishes,
Willow Liquorice
On 22/05/2022 22:27, Christian Grothoff wrote:
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
