We could also add a branch on bitbucket? We can then give you write access to the official repository and I can set up a RTD job for generating the new documentation.
It would be excellent if we can get rid of the sphinx patches. One word of warning: you need to use Python 3 to generate the documentation due to https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/1641 Rob On 30 May 2017 at 09:05, Benjamin Moran <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me. Let me know when you have the fork ready, and we can > start hacking away on it. > Having a public site up will be a great for getting feedback on the > direction. > > Speaking of docstrings, what are your thoughts on the current docstring > format? > > > > > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 1:58:51 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >> >> I forgot to add number zero: make sure all the existing modules have >> complete docstrings! I'd rather focus on that before anything else. >> >> But yeah, I'm interested in doing a lot or most of this. Remember that >> there's no risk of breaking the existing docs, because the API rst files >> are already valid. >> >> Your proposal is a good one. Let's do that. I can use my fork and just >> host the static site on GitHub Pages. >> >> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 9:02:53 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>> >>> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me (espeically #4), but I admit I'm not >>> as familiar with documentation as I should be. >>> It would be ideal to start hacking on this without breaking the existing >>> docs, which are being automatically built by Read the Docs. By the way I >>> believe Rob has set this up, and has ownership of that Read the Docs >>> account. (It was set up before I started contributing). >>> >>> There are Sphinx patches included with pyglet to handle the event stuff, >>> but we probably should check if they're even needed anymore with recent >>> versions. >>> >>> If you are feeling up to spearheading this effort, I'm happy to work >>> with you on it. Maybe we can work off of a fork to start, and set up a >>> temporary online docs page. Does that make sense, or what would be easiest? >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:26:13 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> In my ideal world, the pyglet project would take the following steps: >>>> >>>> 1. "Freeze" the current contents of doc/api. All further updates will >>>> be done by hand. >>>> 2. Check each page by hand. Make any relevant cleanup tweaks. From what >>>> I can see now, this mostly involves getting rid of bogus "Variables" and >>>> "Defines" sections that just list random imports from `future`. >>>> 3. When it looks good, delete all the doc/api-generating code and just >>>> make sure API updates are reflected in the docs. >>>> 4. Go to town updating each individual page to be as good as it can >>>> possibly be! Module pages can become more topic-oriented where appropriate, >>>> rather than having a hard divide between "programming guide" and "API >>>> reference." Django is a good example of this, although they take it too far >>>> for my taste. Some of the pyglet modules already do a good job. >>>> >>>> The current system is actually really nice in that you've already got >>>> valid rst, you just need to stop doing the intermediate step! By removing >>>> the rst-generating step, you just end up with a working set of rst files. >>>> >>>> It might sound like you'll lose time manually tweaking the rst files >>>> over time, but in practice it's adding/removing an `..autoclass::` here and >>>> there, and you more than make up for it in reduced time spent fighting with >>>> the tools. (Spread out over newbie contributors like me, of course!) >>>> >>>> Speaking of event documentation specifically, it's definitely very >>>> important! But it's exactly the kind of thing you can handle with a Sphinx >>>> extension rather than a preprocessing step, which I believe is what is >>>> already happening. You might not need to make any changes at all. But if >>>> you do, I have a lot of experience writing Sphinx extensions from scratch >>>> and can probably help out. >>>> >>>> What that looks like in practice is that you'll have a class docstring >>>> with a directive like this: >>>> >>>> .. pyglet:event:: on_eos >>>> >>>> Fires when the current source ends. >>>> >>>> You can make the HTML look pretty much however you want. The mrjob >>>> project uses it to define[1] and collect[2] command line options. I wrote >>>> the extension[3] to make it trivial for documentation authors. (I disliked >>>> the experience so much I wrote a competing documentation system[4], but I >>>> wouldn't try to convince you to switch.) >>>> >>>> [1] http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/configs-had >>>> oopy-runners.html#option-check_input_paths >>>> [2] http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/configs-reference.html >>>> [3] https://github.com/Yelp/mrjob/blob/master/docs/options_extension.py >>>> [4] http://steveasleep.com/computerwords/ >>>> >>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:04:57 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey Steve, >>>>> >>>>> No offense taken here! I'm very much in support of improving the >>>>> maintainability of the documentation, and lowering barriers to >>>>> contributing. I'd ask Rob, Leif and others to chime in here with their own >>>>> opinions of course, but I think everyone would agree that improvements are >>>>> good. >>>>> >>>>> For my part, I'm more than willing to put in the manual work of >>>>> cleaning up and rewriting docstrings if necessary. I'm not intimately >>>>> familiar with the documentation, but I know the one concern we have is >>>>> that >>>>> the event classes are documented correctly. I'm not sure if this is >>>>> something that is now able to be handled py Sphinx without patching, but >>>>> maybe so. >>>>> >>>>> What would you say is a good path forward? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:46:29 AM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just realized my first sentence might sound a bit ungrateful, but I >>>>>> promise that is not the case. I'm just trying to make a point and express >>>>>> my opinions about best practices. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:45:47 PM UTC-7, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just spent some time improving some of the docs, and I must stay, >>>>>>> I am moderately horrified at the autogenerated rst files. Why not just >>>>>>> write them by hand like everybody else and use autoclass/:members:? It's >>>>>>> not at all onerous to keep them up to date. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As someone who writes a LOT of Python docs, largely for fun ( >>>>>>> https://mrjob.readthedocs.io, https://pillow.readthedocs.io, >>>>>>> http://steveasleep.com/clubsandwich, ...) this honestly makes me >>>>>>> hesitant to put a lot of effort into contributing, because it's an >>>>>>> unusual >>>>>>> and limiting way to do things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The epydoc layout of one class per page with a strict structure of >>>>>>> [inheritance, methods, attributes] is not good for discovery or inline >>>>>>> narrative documentation. And the intermediate api/*.txt-generating >>>>>>> layer is >>>>>>> both a barrier to contribution, and limits the flexibility of the >>>>>>> individual pages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So above and beyond fixing the many, many missing docstrings, my >>>>>>> number one request (which I would gladly do myself!) is that the API >>>>>>> docs >>>>>>> be switched over a more conventional Sphinx setup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:54:05 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Steve, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I found the markdown files on your github. They'll probably need a >>>>>>>> few paragraphs adjusted to fit the rest of the documentation, but it's >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> good addition and certainly better than what we have now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was also looking through some old conversations on the mailing >>>>>>>> list, and it looks like we can remove a lot of old epydoc cruft from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> codebase. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's in Markdown. I'm sure something like Pandoc could convert it >>>>>>>>> with good fidelity. It also has a sample code repo. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:42:59 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the offer Steve. I think we talked about this in the >>>>>>>>>> past but didn't follow up. >>>>>>>>>> It would be a good first step to dump your site into rst, and >>>>>>>>>> then edit it from there. >>>>>>>>>> The raw site wouldn't happen to be in rst already, would it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:59:39 AM UTC+9, Steve wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in helping out with this. I've been a pyglet >>>>>>>>>>> user since 2008 and always thought the docs were pretty bad in >>>>>>>>>>> comparison >>>>>>>>>>> to projects of similar size and maturity. My own best documentation >>>>>>>>>>> work is >>>>>>>>>>> this: http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, the current pyglet docs do not actually document >>>>>>>>>>> all the APIs! You have to read the source code and see the old >>>>>>>>>>> epydoc >>>>>>>>>>> docstrings, or at least this was true as of a few weeks ago. The >>>>>>>>>>> media.Player class in particular has this problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am the author of this out-of-date tutorial: >>>>>>>>>>> http://steveasleep.com/pyglettutorial.html >>>>>>>>>>> Now that pyglet is being maintained again, I would love to just >>>>>>>>>>> contribute the tutorial to the actual docs and redirect my page. >>>>>>>>>>> And when I >>>>>>>>>>> get some time, I will help fill out the rest of the pyglet docs. >>>>>>>>>>> But I can >>>>>>>>>>> make no promises about when that will be. :-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:34:30 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm looking for ideas for how the pyglet documentation can be >>>>>>>>>>>> improved, both in terms of missing things or sections that should >>>>>>>>>>>> be added. >>>>>>>>>>>> I've personally always found the technical aspects of the >>>>>>>>>>>> documentation to be quite good, but I hear often that the >>>>>>>>>>>> documentation as >>>>>>>>>>>> a whole is not so clear for new users. >>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, the "writing a pyglet application" section is >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps a bit to light. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Better than suggestions would be if anyone wants to get >>>>>>>>>>>> involved with writing something new or improving existing >>>>>>>>>>>> sections. Please >>>>>>>>>>>> let me know if you're interested in getting involved. Even if >>>>>>>>>>>> you're not >>>>>>>>>>>> comfortable with making pull requests, I'd be more than happy to >>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> directly with you to handle contributions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Ben >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pyglet-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
