| 1 |
Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:55:50PM +0100, Bart Lauwers wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> [snip] |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
>> So let me rephrase that portage docs need to be complete and up to date at |
| 8 |
>> all times (at least an english version, devs should know enough english). |
| 9 |
>> Linking the documentation to the code is the only way I can see this happen. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Creating documentation automatically always reduces the readability of the |
| 12 |
> documentation. It all depends on who's the intended reader. If it is a |
| 13 |
> developer (and *only* a developer) then creating documentation automatically |
| 14 |
> might be suggesteable (although not official as there is no QA on it - don't |
| 15 |
> dare send me bugreports on automatically created documentation :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If it also involves users, then sorry, I don't think this is a good |
| 18 |
> idea. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Indeed, in my experience, documentation generated by Doxygen is very |
| 21 |
rarely of decent quality. Provided that people are willing to write |
| 22 |
documentation from time to time, ``hand-written'' documentation is |
| 23 |
generally of higher quality. If you just want a function reference, it |
| 24 |
works, but compare the documentation in linux/Documentation to the |
| 25 |
garbage you might get if you were to generate Doxygen documentation from |
| 26 |
it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives