[vlc-devel] Re: [RFC] New doc module?
lool at via.ecp.fr
Wed Jan 15 17:46:39 CET 2003
Sam Hocevar <sam at zoy.org> - Wed, Jan 15, 2003:
> My feeling is that the documentation is small enough to be included
> with the source tarballs. If this feeling is not shared, then we can
> build tarballs without it.
I feel most users simply don't need it. And it changes less often than
the sources, it can mostly be regarded as "static".
> > 4/ The website's CVS is not public (until now) and we need to give
> > accounts for other developers to contribute doc.
> This is not a problem at all, since developers have access to non-
> public areas.
Why give accounts in the website's CVS? What is the relation with VLC's
development? We could for example have the same access files for an
hypothetical vlc-doc/ module and the vlc/ module.
I feel mixing the website's files (which are mostly presentation of a
content) with a part of the content itself is ugly.
> > 5/ How can we keep in sync vlc and its developer doc?
> By switching to a doxygen-style documentation. Separating the
> developer documentation from the code is the best way to let it rot.
Yes, doxygen is very good for this. Doxygen doc will always stay with
the sources (if I understood doxygen correctly), which is a good
thing. But the rest of the doc is not doxygen and it's far from being a
small part of the whole.
Or are you thinking VLC's doc will be entirely written in doxygen?
> I fail to see how it solves 1/, and 2/ 3/ 4/ are not problems.
I forgot to give my point of view on storing a FAQ in VLC's CVS:
- storing a plaintext version which is created using another source is
- storing the SGML version forces the user to have the appropriate
tools which might be quite difficult, and it also complicates
Since mostly developers are concerned by the CVS, I was in the trend of
having only developers-interesting files in VLC's CVS.
> The fifth problem is not minor at all. I won't speak for other parts
> of VideoLAN, but as far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no way
> (read: absolutely no way) anyone will move the VLC developer documentation
> out of the VLC tree.
Do you think developers are working with older versions of the
documentation others than the latest one?
> As for the FAQ, while I agree it's not very pretty, I think it's OK
> to have it in the VLC tree _because_ it can be shipped with VLC.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
This is the vlc-devel mailing-list, see http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
To unsubscribe, please read http://www.videolan.org/lists.html
If you are in trouble, please contact <postmaster at videolan.org>
More information about the vlc-devel