On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> +0 for updating the appendix to reflect 1.5.0 commands. > +1 for dropping the appendix and replacing it with a reference to the > shell's built-in help system. > +10 for automatically creating the appendix on each build (if the > profile is activated), so it doesn't get out of sync again, *if* the > consensus is to include it. > Do you think this is an option for 1.5.0? > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Billie Rinaldi > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I noticed that there's a script that grabs shell output and builds > an > >> > > appendix for the user manual PDF. However, that doesn't appear to be > >> > > automated as part of the documentation build profile. > >> > > > >> > > So, the questions are: > >> > > 1) Do we need this? > >> > > > >> > > >> > For 1.5, it seems like we have the following options. > >> > > >> > 1. Update it to reflect the commands that exist in 1.5. > >> > 2. Drop it. > >> > 3. Leave it as is. > >> > > >> > Whats the current status of this documentation? Is it based on 1.4 > shell > >> > commands? If so then, option 3 would mean shipping 1.5 w/ > documentation > >> > for 1.4 shell commands. Can option 1 be done quickly for 1.5? > >> > > >> > >> Yes, it can be done easily. The get_shell_commands script outputs a new > >> appendix. I'm happy to do this if we still think the appendix is > useful. > >> > > > > If its quick and easy to update I think we should just do it for 1.5. I > am > > not sure how we determine if its useful. One way is to remove it and see > > if anyone complains. > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2) Does it need to be run manually? > >> > > > >> > > Also, I guess there's some extra steps to convert the LaTeX source > for > >> > > the PDF into HTML... regarding that: > >> > > > >> > > 1) are those steps documented anywhere? > >> > > 2) can we automate that procedure? > >> > > 3) do we even need it? > >> > > > >> > > Personally, I think it'd be better to just do the PDF for now, until > >> > > we get Doxia or something similar working. > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > > > >> > > >> >
