I went over it a bit more and see what you mean about wanting to call out events in particular. In the short term I think we should just do it by hand. I went over pyglet.app and pyglet.media that way, I think you'll like it: http://steveasleep.com/pyglet-docs/modules/app.html
rst source: https://bitbucket.org/irskep/pyglet/src/8288ac67654bd5dbfdd47166c00d3728c6826c5d/doc/modules/app.txt?at=doc-improvements&fileviewer=file-view-default On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:33:20 AM UTC-7, Steve Johnson wrote: > > I spent last evening replacing everything in doc/api with a fresh set of > rst files that I put in doc/modules. I also combed through all the Python > files and added proper cross-references where appropriate, and made some > manual improvements for usability. > > Here's how it looks: http://steveasleep.com/pyglet-docs/ > > There are still a lot of things that can be done, but I believe this is > already better than the current site in all the ways that matter. If events > aren't documented in a way you're happy with, I would love it if you could > give me an example in the old docs where it looks the way you want, and > I'll try to match it. > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:51:47 AM UTC-7, Rob wrote: >> >> I am also open to that. Anything to improve the readability of the >> documentation. >> >> I was also playing with the idea to generate the entire 'website' using >> sphinx on RTD. So instead of the wiki pages on bitbucket. >> >> Rob >> >> On 31 May 2017 at 06:22, Benjamin Moran <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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]> 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]. >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>> 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.
