Hrm, looking again at the C++ wrapper code, I wonder if typical generated API docs will even work with the mainstream python documentation tools. I don't know the answer to that.
Mike On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Mike Percy <mpe...@apache.org> wrote: > It seems like everybody in Python land uses Sphinx and ReStructuredText > for documentation. However if this is just API docs then I don't know what > the benefit is to using a system like Sphinx over a core library like > pydoc, since we already have Asciidoc for the primary Kudu documentation. > > As long as the Python API docs are auto-generated, easy to build, and look > nice, I would be okay with whatever seems to work well. > > Mike > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Hey Jordan, >> >> I guess the silence here means that no one has a strong opinion :) I >> wonder >> if the user@ list would have any more thoughts. >> >> I'm curious, though, what exactly this doc tool would do? If it's "prose" >> documentation, maybe we should stick to the adoc style that we use for the >> rest of the documentation, and just give the Python client its own page? >> If >> it's more strictly API docs, isn't that sort of built in using Python doc >> strings? (I'm not much of a Python programmer) >> >> -Todd >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Jordan Birdsell < >> jordantbirds...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Anyone have any opinions/thoughts on Python API documentation? Pyspark, >> > pandas and others use Sphinx, so I'm thinking python devs would be >> pretty >> > comfortable with that format. >> > >> > Jordan >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Todd Lipcon >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> > >
