> We talkes about this at our March Doc meeting. The problem is that the > different doc systems mostly started out from the initial "phpdoc" > repositories system, and developed on their own ways. Reuniting the build > systems under one umbrella would be quite a hard task, and I don't know who > can volunteer on this. It obviously needs more then one person from every > doc team, who understands the system used there, and can work to unite > them. In March, the central build system for all php documentation project > seemed to be a faraway dream... > > Well, it also needs to be mentioned, that if you look at the different > parts (php-dev, pear-dev) they also have different coding standards, CVS > rules, etc.), so it's still a trouble for developers.
Indeed, this would be huge task. Plus, is having a big doc system better than two smaller units ? There is already a lot of work to move from peardoc to peardoc2. > Well, I think we had a wrong picture about PECL (or at least I had), > that the PECL extensions were distributed separately. If all the > extensions are in PECL, the manual should contain the core ones, > bundled with PHP, that's for sure. > > We would also like to gain some on moving docs to PEAR/PECL doc tree > as there will be less to translate for the core PHP manual. I don't > think so that any translation team can handle the current size of the > manual and keep it up to date. Some translations had backed off when > faced the size of the work to do to make the translation complete, or > manage a translation at some stage. From an insider view, I can say > that the Hungarian translation also faces such problems now, we are > unable to at least keep the translation up to date... -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
