On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:11:08AM +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > A third argument is that the user's manual serves as code > documentation for hackers. It gives us a "feel" for where we are in > the code.
I think that's a separate "deliverable" to the user manual, namely the API documentation. > Anyway, if you are willing to do the work and if you are willing to > commit to taking charge of the user's documentation (with the usual > right to delegate of course!), then I will enthusiastically support > the move (as long as we do it carefully). I'm certainly happy to work on it; depending on how easily I take to it I might be able to then take on a full documentation manager role. My main concern has been overcommitting, time-wise. Moving forward from here, the work involved is - transcribing the user manual hunks from src/foo.lhs to doc/manual/foo.tex and making sure the manual still builds. At the same time, I should be able to point out any non-manual literate bits that warrant haddockification. - getting consensus on what source format to use (Max and I favour reST, though I don't know if Max wants to get involved in ongoing maintenance of the user manual). - translating doc/manual/foo.tex into that other format, and making sure the manual still builds. - [ongoing] integrating regular "update the manual to match updates to the code" passes with the wider release procedures, so that stable releases always have accurate documentation, even if its sometimes out of date in the unstable repo. I'll aim to get started on the first point this weekend. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
