Hi François, pin...@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:
> That's why I suggested an appendix. We search in them, more than we > really read them. On the other hand, it would considerably augment the > weight of a printed manual, and so, be more harmful to our forests. That's why I tried to gather *all* functions and variables in an .org file, which you can see as an appendix. Did you check it? >> Wrt documentation, Emacs is its own reference, by letting you access >> everything with C-h v org-*. > > Emacs has impressive ways to offer its own documentation. Still a bit > uneasy to use C-h v (or C-h f) on everything. M-x apropos org- RET is > more handy and searchable, yet the documentation is likely limited to > the first line of each docstring (so at least this convention for a > complete sentence in the first line of a docstring). > >> Another point: there is a lot to do to improve the current docstrings >> and the manual. This is a matter of 1) pulling from git, 2) modifying >> the file, 3) run `C-x v =' in the buffer, 4) send the patch. [...] >> If you're interested in improving this, please go ahead, I'd be >> interested in getting something working along these lines. > > Oh, the problem is surely not the lack of interest, but the sore lack of > free hours in a week, and the quantity of ways to occupy those rare > hours already (something Org mode is tremendously helpful at organizing, > by the way). Org should claim 10% of the time it spares you ;-) > Surely that given enough free time, I would just love to > contribute. The truth is that I can only offer tiny crumbs. In any > case, I'm saving your message and notes (who knows the future!). Indeed. My suggestion is to stick to the current collective workflow: let's try to document small things in relevant places (manual or worg) and let's avoid Big Projects (bikesheds). Thanks! -- Bastien