On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Brandon Tanner <[email protected]> wrote: > I've thought about that recently, I would like to pitch in some > documentation for the ioquake3, has anyone decided on a format? I'm > particular to the javadoc-like style, but anything is better than > nothing. If I run doxygen against the trunk, can we put it up on the > ioquake3 website? What if I work on documenting some functions, do I > just make a commit or do we need to make an account for that?
I think you need to be approved to get commit access to the SVN. I've just started my own fork of ioq3 for |ALPHA|. We'll try to feed back from things to ioq3 but I am not totally worried about what they take or not. :-D I think it would be odd to use javadoc for a C project, but whatever floats everybody's boat. I think Doxygen has tags that are somewhat similar to javadoc? What I mean is that I think it accepts \doxygentag and @doxygentag in most places? Maybe I am wrong... Note that I don't really care about the crazy detail lots of javadoc enthusiasts put into documentation (20 tags for 10 lines of code? crazy). It would be good enough to have a single sentence for each function and data structure, that would already be a big improvement... And an overview of how it all fits together is needed to get more people involved (if that is a goal at all). -- |ALPHA| Mad Professor <[email protected]> http://www.urtalphaclan.com/ <><><> Home of El Guapo! _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
