[Sdldoc-devel] Re: Updating for 1.2.5; future development

[<ak...@cs...>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Max Horn wrote:
> Yo there (whoever is out there),
dunno, me and you i think.

> I just noticed akawaka/Martin Donlon actually added me to the sdldoc 
> project at SF.net recently :-) Not sure if this list is used at all, or 
> if anybody is on it (akawaka? are you here? :-).  But anyway, it would 
> be nice to get things rolling...
Yeah, sorry about that, I added you to the project and then got
distracted.

> in particular, the following things are amongst those I'd like to see 
> happening with sdldoc (and I am willing to work on them, too):

> * getting the many many user comments merged into the docs where 
> appropriate
A dump of all the user comments is in cvs somewhere.

> * fixing any other problems we find in the content or which are being 
> reported
> * updating the descriptions to SDL 1.2.5 where/if needed
> * streamline some other things, e.g. the "Events" section of the SDL 
> reference is different from all the others in index in that it doesn't 
> list all its API there (it's one level deeper in the hierarchy). This 
> should be unified one way or the other, IMHO.
yup, yup, yup.

> To this end, I'd like to know if the version of the sdldoc' stuff in 
> the SF.net CVS is up-to-date, or not? If not, could it be made?
Whats in cvs of sf is currently the most up to date version.

> The other thing Martin and me would like to tackle is to maybe switch 
> to a new format for the docs. Maybe it would be a good time to list 
> what that new format would need to fulfill to be suitable? Martin, I 
> believe you had such a list, or even already a plan on what you wanted 
> to use (TeX?).
Yeah, I did mention this on IRC, but the amount of work involved is
probably huge and I'm not sure what the benefits will be.

> Anyway, while a new format maybe is a good thing on the long run, I 
> believe that first fixing up the existing sdldoc may be a good first 
> step. To this end it would be nice to have the latest version in CVS so 
> that multiple persons can get working on it. BTW is there a particular 
> reason not to use the webspace SF.net provides us? Using it would have 
> the convenience bonus, that any project members can make fixes on the 
> site, they don't have to be funneled thru Martin. But of course maybe 
> there are good reasons which make using the SF.net webspace a bad idea, 
> I'll wait for Martin to comment on this :-)
The only reason I run the site on my own site is because I don't know if
sf provides a db that I need for the user comments system, I'd be happy
to move over to sf if they do.


-- 
Martin
--
Bother! said Pooh, as he couldn't think of a tagline.