On 26/01/2017 18:40, G 3 wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> >> >> On 26/01/2017 18:28, G 3 wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:00 PM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> as you may know I've been collecting some ideas about documentation for >>>> QEMU at http://wiki.qemu-project.org/Features/Documentation. >>>> >>>> I've now prepared a poll to understand how familiars developers are >>>> with >>>> various documentation tools. I've CCed people with most commits to >>>> QEMU >>>> documentation, or with whom I have discussed about this before, but >>>> everybody's opinion is of course welcome! >>>> >>>> The poll is hosted with Google Forms and you can fill it in at >>>> https://goo.gl/Yfxj1M. If you hate Google Forms, contact me offlist >>>> and >>>> I'll send you the questions by email (and remind you when I need >>>> someone >>>> to review my patches). >>>> >>>> Paolo >>>> >>>> >>>> tl;dr: poll is at https://goo.gl/Yfxj1M >>> >>> >>> For this question: >>> What's your opinion on the maintainability of the following >>> documentation formats? >>> >>> Is it from 1(least maintainable) to 5 (most maintainable)? >>> >>> The survey looks good. I will take it. >> >> Yes, all of them are 1=bad 5=good. > > Could we add HTML to the list of documentation formats?
Since you have mentioned that in the comments and someone else mentioned AsciiDoc, they weren't included because: - HTML is mostly a destination format. With the listed formats it is possible to produce a variety of outputs (mostly HTML itself and PDF; secondarily text or ePub or others). - AsciiDoc was considered by the Linux kernel folks but they complained about the tools. Paolo
