We could use this, yes. Volunteers? :)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Michel Pelletier <pelletier.mic...@gmail.com> wrote: > Read the docs is fantastic, I used it for pyczmq and it works great. Also > it's not just software or a hosting service, the author (a local here in my > neck of the woods) hosts "write the docs" conferences focusing on writing > and producing good documentation: > > http://www.writethedocs.org/ > > All together it's a powerful documentation ecosystem. > > -Michel > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: >> >> We have generators of various kinds: gitdown, mkman, which zproject >> uses/plugs into. The commonality is text files that turn into man >> pages and then various other formats that can be sent anywhere. I >> don't think we need to *standardise* so much as decide on a format, a >> host, and a safe way to upload after successful CI builds. We can have >> many of these. >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Arnaud Loonstra <arn...@sphaero.org> >> wrote: >> > Perhaps we can standardise on this? Perhaps even include some >> > generators for it in zproject? >> > I was starting to use Sphinx for Pyre as well. Now using it for >> > multiple projects. I'm not familiar with how it works with other >> > languages but for Python it's great. >> > >> > On 2016-02-17 10:39, Doron Somech wrote: >> >> Take a look at readthedocs.org [9], it is what NetMQ is using and >> >> completely automated. You manage the docs in the git repository. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com >> >> [10]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hmm, the tools we use to build the online docs are old and creaky, >> >>> and >> >>> date from long before we had neat CI automation. Meaning, we update >> >>> the api site manually. >> >>> >> >>> Im doing that now. I think its time we look at pushing this >> >>> directly >> >>> to github pages, from Travis. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mario Steinhoff >> >>> <steinhoff.ma...@gmail.com [1]> wrote: >> >>> > Hi everyone, >> >>> > >> >>> > I am a bit confused about the available information on libzmq >> >>> versions. >> >>> > >> >>> > The page at api.zeromq.org [2] says that we have: >> >>> > >> >>> > - 4.2 (master) >> >>> > - 4.1 (rc) >> >>> > - 4.0 (stable) >> >>> > - 3.2 (stable) >> >>> > >> >>> > On the download page 4.0 is missing: >> >>> > >> >>> > - a version-less master which "should be stable almost all the >> >>> time" (4.2?) >> >>> > - 4.1.4 ("stable") >> >>> > - 3.2.5 ("legacy stable") >> >>> > >> >>> > In libzmq, the NEWS file on master seems to be outdated (last >> >>> update >> >>> > in 2014). The doc folder in libzmq seems to be maintained but not >> >>> in >> >>> > sync with api.zeromq.org [3] (I checked today and some changes >> >>> from the >> >>> > last commit in that folder are not present on the site). >> >>> > >> >>> > There are also maintained stabilization forks as per C4.1 for >> >>> libzmq, >> >>> > e.g. zeromq4-x (which contains 4.0?), 4-1, and 3-x (which >> >>> contains >> >>> > 3.2?). >> >>> > >> >>> > And then there is this article: http://hintjens.com/blog:85 [4] >> >>> which >> >>> > suggests in a very compelling way that software versions suck and >> >>> to >> >>> > ditch them altogether (yes I agree) but I cant find those SBOMs >> >>> > anywhere so I assume that experiment did not went very far. >> >>> > >> >>> > With all this, whats the current status on libzmq versioning? >> >>> > >> >>> > Am I understanding right that: >> >>> > >> >>> > - The libzmq repository is always the latest and greatest, and >> >>> 4.2 >> >>> > looks like the last version Ill ever need™, its always stable >> >>> and >> >>> > follows the raw-draft-stable-deprecated process so its also >> >>> always >> >>> > backwards compatible. >> >>> > >> >>> > - Stable releases are maintained for 3.2, 4.0, and 4.1 and >> >>> sometimes >> >>> > bugfixes get backported from 4.2. >> >>> > >> >>> > - Release notes are only maintained for stable releases? >> >>> > >> >>> > Is the outdated API site a bug or a feature? I am currently using >> >>> the >> >>> > text files in doc/ but I like to look at the fancy ZMQ logo when >> >>> I >> >>> > browse the API reference :-) >> >>> > >> >>> > Cheers >> >>> > Mario >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> >>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org [5] >> >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev [6] >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >> >>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org [7] >> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev [8] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Links: >> >> ------ >> >> [1] mailto:steinhoff.ma...@gmail.com >> >> [2] http://api.zeromq.org >> >> [3] http://api.zeromq.org >> >> [4] http://hintjens.com/blog:85 >> >> [5] mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> >> [6] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> [7] mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> >> [8] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> [9] http://readthedocs.org >> >> [10] mailto:p...@imatix.com >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
