On 14 August 2010 23:09, Karl Berry wrote:
> [reducing to bug-gnulib]
>
> unhappy with code-generated documentation.
>
> We can have code-generated documentation *if* you (or someone) writes
> rms with a detailed explanation of the situation (I can review any
> draft). He always (to my knowled
[reducing to bug-gnulib]
unhappy with code-generated documentation.
We can have code-generated documentation *if* you (or someone) writes
rms with a detailed explanation of the situation (I can review any
draft). He always (to my knowledge) has had various
requests/recommendations for how t
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 14 August 2010 16:46, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> On 4 August 2010 09:54, James Youngman wrote:
>>> I'm not sure the two options need to be exclusive.
>>
>> Fair enough, especially as it's machine generated, so the maintenance
>> problem I
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> gnulib people: you seem to be unhappy with code-generated
> documentation. How would you like to proceed?
It's OK to have documentation include pieces of the code if the
extraction and update is done by us (the maintainers). What we would
like to avoid is that people/distros
On 14 August 2010 16:46, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 4 August 2010 09:54, James Youngman wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> "in regexprops-generic.texi, I think that having a plain English
>>> definition of the various syntaxes obscures the fact that each is
>>>
On 4 August 2010 09:54, James Youngman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
>> "in regexprops-generic.texi, I think that having a plain English
>> definition of the various syntaxes obscures the fact that each is
>> defined as a strict combination of features. Would you
