On 22.08.2011 11:12, Thilo Schulz wrote: > On Monday, 22. August 2011 02:02:24 un dead wrote: >> If I made a patch that used doxygen style comments plus a Doxyfile, >> would it have a chance of getting accepted? The current comments >> aren't useful if you want to generate documentation. >> >> Additionally, the way the functions are laid out, it's harder to grep >> for functions. You have to use ctags or something like that because >> not every function has a header. > And it only makes sense if you start off your project using these doxygen > guidelines > to begin with.
Why not retrofit it? The documentation doesn't have to cover every piece of code in order to be usefull. If someone provides documentation for only the renderer or a serverframe overview, then that already beats the non-documentation we currently have. The wiki also doesn't go very deep, but I prefer that to no information at all. > A patch would leave no piece of code untouched, this is a nightmare from the > point of view of someone who regularly merges ioquake3 changes to his > project. The documentation can live in seperate files, it doesn't have to be mingled with the code. I think the main problem is getting people to contribute. The code overview pages in the ioquake3 wiki are in bad shape because of lacking contributions, even tough editing a wiki page is dead easy. Compare that to the process of formatting your documentation in javadoc syntax, creating a patch file, filing it to bugzilla and having someone commit it. In case this takes off, (as a fork, for starters?) I'd be happy to merge the stuff from http://soclose.de/q3doc/ _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
