Hello,
Yeah, I've done quite a bit of work on that front. I believe I used the
pandoc method in the end to translate it all to (rough) reST. The
conversion isn't perfect: the heading hierarchy is a bit iffy and it
completely breaks the index (a blessing and a curse, Sphinx's indexing
is a lot more sophisticated so rewriting the index would be desirable
anyway).
I wasn't able to submit any of this because I couldn't find a place to
sign on the Copyright Assignment.
The Doxygen tidy-up I was doing has stalled out too, because I couldn't
get the neovim macros I wrote for the task to work reliably. They use
neovim's LSP integration to find a symbol in the headers, but they rely
on cursor placement to do that, and the cursor sometimes misses the
symbol. When they work, everything progresses rather quickly because you
don't have to wade through the source code.
I'm not sure how easy it would be to share those macros, if anyone wants
to help me debug them, but I can at least share the Lua functions and
LSP configuration they use to perform the navigation. Would anyone like
to see them?
Best wishes,
Willow Liquorice
On 27/07/2022 18:01, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if you had started with sphinx/rtd for the handbook already?
If not, I have played around with it today and already have migrated some text
and could commit it to gnunet.git or a new repo.
That would allow anyone to play around and add content.
But if you are already further, I would stop and not do that :)
BR
Martin
On 24. May 2022, at 23:19, Willow Liquorice <wil...@howhill.com> wrote:
Ah, you can do it through pandoc. I'll bear that in mind and see about adapting
it to our repository.
On 24/05/2022 22:16, Nikita Ronja Gillmann wrote:
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
