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$oft (.DOC, .PPT) format please Read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Preferable attachments: .PDF, .HTML, .TXT Thanx for adding this text to Your signature -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT d-(++)@ s+(++):->+++ a-- C+++$>++++ 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? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature