On Wednesday 09 April 2014 15:42:47 Aleix Pol wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Kevin Funk <kf...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 April 2014 02:25:18 Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > > > Hello folks, I know that August is months away, but if you want your > > > Frameworks book, now is the time to step forward. > > > > > > Here are some things to think about: > > > > > > Most of this book is already written somewhere. When the words have > > > already been written down, all we need do is gather and arrange them. > > > When you think of such an email, dot story, blog post or have eloquent > > > thoughts in your head, please make a note. > > > > > > If you are on this list, you are an expert. You know what the > > > Frameworks will do for KDE, and you know what they *can* do for > > > others. Our book will present that case. A good book will help grow > > > the Frameworks team; I'm sure of it. And a good book will make your > > > work more widely used. Oh, and you'll be a published author! > > > > > > While in Randa, none of us will be writing full-time. In fact, I hope > > > that *all* of the Frameworks people will stop by the writing room, or > > > log into Booki and review, add, re-arrange, correct, or make the text > > > more graceful. > > > > > > To make this work a few people must volunteer to take on the writing > > > of the book as their most important task at Randa. It will be mine, > > > and our goal is to have a book by the end of the week. We've done it > > > before, and I know we can do it again. This is a valuable work. > > > > > > We need to know the core members of this team, soon. Please step > > > forward, and also add yourself to the Spints page for planning and > > > funding. > > > > > > Valorie > > > > Hey, > > > > I'm wondering if we should rather try spending the time in making our KF5 > > apidocs shine. You could spend plenty of time on writing introductory > > parts > > for the individual modules, writing tutorials and examples, and make sure > > they're easy to reach and grasp for newcomers on apidocs.kde.org. This is > > an > > integral part for the docs on qt-project.org, too. Just have a look at the > > first hit for "qt docs": [1] > > > > There's a "Getting Started" section, with overviews [2] with examples and > > tutorials [3]. That's *exactly* what we need for KF5, too. That's the best > > place to point newcomers to whenever they want to get wet with KF5. But it > > also takes time and people to get to this state. > > > > Personally, from a developer POV, I don't really see the need for a > > separate > > "book". There will always be a discrepancy between the book and the actual > > code (be it completeness, accuracy, its up-to-date-ness), and for > > developers > > it's always an extra burden to make sure to amend the contents of the book > > whenever they change something in source code. It's much more > > straight-forward > > to make sure that at least the apidocs are up-to-date. The apidocs being > > inline in the source code being is an integral part in making sure they're > > amended alongside of source code changes. > > > > Opinions? What do the frameworks devs think about it? > > > > Greets > > > > [1] http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/index.html > > [2] http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/overviews-main.html > > [3] http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtexamplesandtutorials.html > > > > -- > > Kevin Funk > > _______________________________________________ > > Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list > > Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org > > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel > > Hi, > I'm unsure what to say. On one hand, people always seem inclined to have > some literature available, especially in the shape of a book. It helps you > go through the technologies when you don't know much what you're doing but > you still want to learn. It offers a linear overview of interesting things > on a related subject, meaning that if things are not interesting, you can > opt to not include them in the book. > > On the other hand, documentation is much more future-proof in terms of > having it actively-ish maintained and it will be more useful for the > developers who decide to stay using KF5, since they will know what to look > for. > A proof of this is that even though we have wonderful Qt documentation, we > see new books appearing all the time, and I guess this means they pay off, > at least. > > Maybe we should consider the book more as a replacement to the TechBase > [1], if it's even possible to offer it in a proper web shape as well, at > least. > > Personally, given that there will be compromises either way, I would say > that who codes (or writes) decides. I'll be happy to give a hand in either > direction.
Fair point. Regardless of what we do, it will be an improvement. >From my point of view, proper API documentation/tutorials should be given primary focus, though, given the lack of manpower in this area. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to demotivate anyone from this kind of documentation work (be it in form of a book or apidocs). I'm happy to see it emerge either way. Aleix nails it, whoever does the work, decides. My worry is just that people spend a lot of time on polishing a book (which the average user won't conduct) but neglect the presentation of KF5 on api.kde.org (which *is* the first point of contact for the average user). Please note, I'm not saying noone will read that book, it's just that the book alone won't really help people who *are already* working very closely with KF5. Us, as in "the people hacking on KDE". I'll likely be part of the Randa sprint, too, so I can give a hand as well. > Aleix > > [1] http://techbase.kde.org/Welcome_to_KDE_TechBase Greets -- Kevin Funk _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel