Duncan Gibson wrote: > I think that for the moment we should keep it simple and try to avoid > surprises. Therefore we should keep the Doxyfile generated from 1.5.5 > as this will work with later versions.
Yep, as we're doing already. > Similarly, a 1.5.5 user should > regenerate the stylesheet .css file, change the h2 and h3 fontsizes > and add your "code" element definition, and check the output is OK. This would need documentation, and it would be at least "surprising" for end users if the doxygen docs can't be generated out of the box. But it would be a possible way to let users with older versions generate local docs, if they can't upgrade to a newer version. Currently I don't think that we can automate this with make :-( > And it would be easiest if Fabien continues to update the web docs, > whenever there are major changes. I wouldn't expect any until 1.3.0 > is released, so that shouldn't involve much work. Well, I do expect _some_ updates. All your changes and other bug fixes and extensions should be available online for testers and users. We should do an update every few weeks or after any significant changes. Fabien, if you want to do this in the future, would you mind upgrading to 1.5.9? If we have the same versions, then we could both update the web docs without much interference. > We should re-evaluate doxygen version and web page update system > when 1.3.0 is released. What about a Comments version for feedback? You mean online docs with comments like 1.1? I don't know if or why it doesn't work currently, but it is there. However, the _problem_ with this is that the comments are linked with the URL of the doc file in the database, and if this URL changes (see recent file renames), then this would have to be reflected in the database, too, or we would lose comments. I'd like to look into it, and I prepared a local test web site already, but this will take some time. Mike would probably know this better. We should also consider making the documentation URL more version specific, i.e. not only doc-1.1 and doc-1.3, but doc-1.1.10 and doc-1.3.0. This would ensure that the comments of old versions wouldn't be kept for much newer versions, as it was for 1.1 . But this becomes more and more OT... Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
