[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: grace period [ was developers' guide]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:06:20PM +0400, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 13:49, Mohammed Sameer wrote:
> > And why don't we use the autogen.sh ? Most of the projects are using it 
> > already.
> > 
> Why do I get the feeling that I replied to this before. If the general
> consensus Is to go with autogen.sh as the standard, then it's fine with
> me. All I am after here is consistency. I arbitrarily chose
> Makefile.cvs, but I have no emotional attachments to it.
Nop, I didn't get a reply to this before.
i talked much about the advantages of autogen.sh as it's a script, And
thus we can put many tests more easy.
ok, now what's the general consensus ??

> > We are not judging the development skills here, And we are not forcing 
> > the developer to learn new things just because we want to
> > 
> Learning Makefile structure as opposed to shell scripting? Really.. both
> are worth learning if you plan to do any development ;)
no, I don't think so.

> > I have a suggestion here:
> > I'm using Gtk, I think using gtk-doc 'd be better than doxygen
> > Another developer is using Qt/Kde, then use their documentation 
> > framework.
> > etc...
> > Only use doxygenn if No documentation framework is there for the toolkit 
> > used/or if you are developing a console application.
> > 
> I am sticking my guns on this one. We want something that is
> framework-agnostic. Doxygen is the answer. It is rather flexible and you
> may very likely not have to change much in the way you comment your code
> already (if you're using a documentation framework for gtk or whatever).
> Again, no one is being asked to learn Doxygen. It is only required that
> you comment your code (in the _many_ ways acceptable by the Doxygen
> processor) so that code is being documented.. and that we can
> automatically generate code documentation straight from CVS.
ok, and what if I want to generate documentation using gtk-doc ? Why
> do I have to write the comments 2 times ?
and I didn't know that gtk-doc has changed ?

> > > 
> > Does this have to be in the standard ChangeLog format specified by the 
> > GNU project ??
> > 
> Yes. That would be preferable. cvs2cl already does that.. so you may
> follow how it outputs things. I made a link to it just so people know
> where to go.
hmmm, I don't think it's easy but it's a good thing.

> > for individual projects, i think it doesn't make sence.
> > but when we are to release togeather, then we can enforce this.
> > 
> Completely disagree ;)
sorry, I prefere leaving the versioning system to the developer.

> > and sure the new guidelines'll be followed by me regardless of what i 
> > think about them ;-)
> > 
> That's because you're too nice ;) 

carefull not to be tricked ;-)

-- Katoob Main Developer
Linux registered user #224950, ICQ #58475622
Don't send me any attachment in Micro$oft (.DOC, .PPT) format please
Read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Preferable attachments: .PDF, .HTML, .TXT
Thanx for adding this text to Your signature
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT d-(++)@ s+(++):->+++ a-- C+++$>++++ UL+++$>++++ P+++$>+++++
L+++(++++)$>+++++ E>+++ W++?>$ N+>+++ o? K-? !w++ !O !M !V !PS@ !PE@ Y+ PGP=+++
t? 5? !X R? tv-- b+@ DI D+ G-- e++>+++ h-->++ !r y?

Attachment: pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature