Howdy, On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Harald Schilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, I want to propose a process to increase the quality of the Sage > documentation. This is the by far most annoying thing about Sage > according to the last survey. I think the userbase is already big and > willing enough to contribute more documentation. To do this in a more > coordinated way, there should be some sort of process and guidelines.
It would be great if you could find a way to reuse/improve the tool recently developed for scipy's 'documentation marathon': - Live site: http://sd-2116.dedibox.fr/pydocweb/wiki/Front%20Page/ - Project sources: https://code.launchpad.net/~pauli-virtanen/scipy/pydocweb This tool produced a great amount of improved docs this summer for numpy. There's a bit too much workflow process for my personal taste, but perhaps in practice it's the right balance, and it certainly worked for them. What that tool is missing is integration with other docs (sphinx/rest). Right now I think it only does docstrings, and I'd *love* to have that same workflow for rest doc sources, so that the public can contribute to all the docs in a wiki, that is automatically wired to generate diffs for review. For Sage it could create tickets for your Trac, for numpy it would be numpy/scipy Trac tickets also, for ipython it could be a special bzr branch on launchpad, etc. A generic tool of this kind to manage both the 'narrative' docs of a project and its docstring-based API would be tremendously useful, and the numpy one is a pretty good start already (and publicly available). Cheers, f --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
