On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM, wrote:
> 4. The QDoc commands and functionality are not known well enough by
> For issue 4 I would like to point people to
> http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qdoc/ this is the URL of the qdoc
> manual. If everybody follows what is written there and reports bugs
On 4/24/12 9:53 AM, "ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com"
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I just cut out the rest of the email for clarity. (great that you would
>want to help)
>
>I just want to talk about the inherits and inherited by problem.
>"Inherits" should always work, because you compile the Qt code that way
Hi,
I just cut out the rest of the email for clarity. (great that you would
want to help)
I just want to talk about the inherits and inherited by problem.
"Inherits" should always work, because you compile the Qt code that way
(you cannot subclass a class that doesn't exist yet).
I just want to
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, André Somers wrote:
> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
> that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be
> able to see relations between some major classes, like QObject ->
> QWidget. You'd only be able
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM, wrote:
> TL;DR: We need to change the way Qt does documentation. A lot of things
> will change and we need help from everybody.
>
This is granted, but as the whole Qt5 process looks, this will be for the good.
> As mentioned by Lars: We should make sure the quali
Hi,
>
>There are other tasks that seems to be missing.
>
>- What is documentation? Are we talking only about the API docs or also
>about code examples, tutorials, demo videos?
I don't want to talk about any of the non-API documentation for now, since
that is also a mess that needs to be cleaned u
On 4/13/12 10:32 AM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen"
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 07:04:42AM +, ext
>casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
>> You are correct, that is what will happen, the same as the current
>>system.
>> The thing is that people have difficulty understanding where
>> QT_QML_QDOC
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 07:04:42AM +, ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com
wrote:
> You are correct, that is what will happen, the same as the current system.
> The thing is that people have difficulty understanding where
> QT_QML_QDOCCONF etc. come from currently.
>
> I can see a problem with th
On 4/13/12 7:34 AM, "Lincoln Ramsay" wrote:
>On 04/13/2012 03:19 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
>> But I would be grateful if you would make a plan on how to turn qdoc
>> into a mini-qmake so that qdoc can parse the .pro/sync.profile, so
>> that we don't need the depends. Because t
On 04/13/2012 03:19 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
> But I would be grateful if you would make a plan on how to turn qdoc
> into a mini-qmake so that qdoc can parse the .pro/sync.profile, so
> that we don't need the depends. Because that would probably also mean
> that you have to ru
Hi,
> We had cross-module links in both directions. We achieved this by
> running qdoc twice per module. Once to get the .index (used for
> resolving links) and again to build with the other modules' .index
> files. The only way to avoid doing things twice would be to have more
> intermediate step
Hi.
In general I applaud this effort.
I'm going to talk about some of the doc things Qtopia had. Most of this
came from our (infamous for being unmaintainable) mkdocs script. Given
the reputation that script had I'm not about to suggest we implement
things similarly in Qt but perhaps the ideas
On 4/12/12 4:09 PM, "ext Olivier Goffart" wrote:
>On Thursday 12 April 2012 15:35:45 André Somers wrote:
>> Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef:
>> > Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of
>>files
>> > around and make some things impossible.
>> >
On 4/12/12 7:27 PM, "ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com"
wrote:
>>> There are 2 main problems with the current system:
>>> 1. Nobody was running "make docs" on their local machines (and
>>>verifying the
>>> output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last
>>> December. Having the
On 04/12/2012 06:12 AM, ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
> To get and keep our documentation in shape for Qt 5.0 and beyond I think
> we will need to tackle the following problems:
> 1. The documentation is not modularized.
> 2. The documentation build system is hard to explain to people.
>> There are 2 main problems with the current system:
>> 1. Nobody was running "make docs" on their local machines (and verifying the
>> output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last
>> December. Having the documentation modularized will at some point
>> (hopefully soon) allow
On Thursday 12 April 2012 16:30:39 casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
> >> While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above
> >> are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly.
> >>
> >> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
> >> tha
>> While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above
>> are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly.
>>
>> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
>> that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be
>> able to see
On Thursday 12 April 2012 15:35:45 André Somers wrote:
> Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef:
> > Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of files
> > around and make some things impossible.
> > The biggest consequence will be that we will have the same
Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef:
> Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of files
> around and make some things impossible.
> The biggest consequence will be that we will have the same dependency
> chain as when compiling the modules.
> E.g. not a
20 matches
Mail list logo
