Ok.
Even though I think
- the tool (Doxygen, Wiki, plain files) is of no matter whether
documentation maintenance works out or not
- it is not possible to work offline with Wiki in contrast to git/Doxygen
I consider this mail thread closed. Wiki as the tool of choice if it is
not about API do
Hi,
two questions about the Wiki editing:
Currently I am not allowed to create new pages.
I read that there is a security mechanism that allows users to create
new pages only 1 week after registration.
I have registered more than a year ago, but I think my last login was
also more than a year
Hi,
I have a different view:
Am 04.09.2014 um 00:28 schrieb John Ralls:
> We’ve tried in-source design documentation, both in plain text files
> and in the module descriptions in the Doxygen-docs.
should read "Only few of us ..." - perhaps others are unsure about the how?
> It wasn’t maintained
Am 03.09.2014 um 10:57 schrieb Carsten Rinke:
> Big ones like "how does qof work?"
Good question!
> and small ones like "what does xacc actually stand for?".
Somewhere Linas Veptas told us: "There was one guy before me, he wrote
something called 'xacc' (X11-accountant) for a class project; it us
Hi,
Carsten Rinke writes:
> Hi,
>
> two questions about the Wiki editing:
>
> Currently I am not allowed to create new pages.
> I read that there is a security mechanism that allows users to create
> new pages only 1 week after registration.
> I have registered more than a year ago, but I think
On Thursday 04 September 2014 13:38:48 Frank H. Ellenberger wrote:
> Am 03.09.2014 um 10:57 schrieb Carsten Rinke:
> > Big ones like "how does qof work?"
>
> Good question!
>
> > and small ones like "what does xacc actually stand for?".
>
> Somewhere Linas Veptas told us: "There was one guy befo
On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a different view:
>
> Am 04.09.2014 um 00:28 schrieb John Ralls:
>> We’ve tried in-source design documentation, both in plain text files
>> and in the module descriptions in the Doxygen-docs.
>
> should read "Only few o
Am 04.09.2014 um 16:26 schrieb John Ralls:
> Just like Carsten you missed the point that the *design*
> documentation doesn't and can't live in the code files and isn't part
> of writing a patch.
Just for completeness:
There is a bunch of texi files in src/doc/design.
- But https://github.com/Gnu
Oops, seems to be more left for discussion than I thought.
John,
you are absolutely right that design documentation should not reside in
code files.
That is not what I was aiming at (even though sometimes a good
implementation description can be half a design document - so there
might be a gr
On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger
wrote:
> Am 04.09.2014 um 16:26 schrieb John Ralls:
>> Just like Carsten you missed the point that the *design*
>> documentation doesn't and can't live in the code files and isn't part
>> of writing a patch.
>
> Just for completeness:
> There is
On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Carsten Rinke wrote:
> Oops, seems to be more left for discussion than I thought.
>
> John,
>
> you are absolutely right that design documentation should not reside in code
> files.
> That is not what I was aiming at (even though sometimes a good implementation
>
On Thursday 04 September 2014 15:11:59 John Ralls wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger
> wrote:
> > Am 04.09.2014 um 16:26 schrieb John Ralls:
> >> Just like Carsten you missed the point that the *design*
> >> documentation doesn't and can't live in the code files and isn't
>
On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2014 15:11:59 John Ralls wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger
> > wrote:
> > > Am 04.09.2014 um 16:26 schrieb John Ralls:
> > >> Just like Carsten you missed the point that the *design*
> > >> d
13 matches
Mail list logo
