I personally have no issue with that.
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:06:35 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: > > On a totally separate note, how open are you all to changes to the theme? > I find the small font on the class and function names hard to read. > > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Steve Johnson wrote: >> >> Sounds great, I'm in! >> >> BTW, I'm already all in on Python 3, but it looks like the current docs >> are omitting all methods on all classes and I suspect Python 3 is the >> reason. I'm not sure I'll be able to track that one down. I opened a ticket >> for it yesterday on BitBucket. >> >> >> On Tue, May 30, 2017, at 05:16 AM, Rob van der Most wrote: >> >> 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] <javascript:> >> > 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-hadoopy-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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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.
