2009/1/3 mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com>: > > > > On Jan 3, 6:44 am, "John Cremona" <john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > HI, > >> To clarify the answer to Georg's question, to you want reviewers to >> read the output html and report on anything which looks wrong, or to >> read the patch (where the markup used is something which would need a >> reference to be provided). > > In a perfect world: both, but reading the patch is IMHO more important > than looking at the resulting documentation.
By the time I read this reply I had spent an hour reading through the html and making a lost of the (few) bad things I saw. I hope this will not be wasted...the list will be posted at #4926 anyway, and I may be able to follow it up with actually fixing the source. > >> I am happier to do the former (say for sage,schemes.* in #4926). But >> I guess that we will all have to learn the new markup at some point >> (soon) anyway. > > Mike has some patch for the documentation that adds explanations on > how to write the new docstrings, but as far as I can see it is not in > trac yet. While talking to him in IRC last night he mentioned that the > remaining non-ref manual documentation are two more tickets or so, so > hopefully those will be up soon, too. I read the primer at http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickstart.html in only 5 minutes and I think that's all most of us would need. John > >> John > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
