sdldoc-devel

[Sdldoc-devel] Updating for 1.2.5; future development

[Max H. <ma...@qu...>]

Yo there (whoever is out there),

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...

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
* 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.

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?

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?).

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 :-)



Cheers,

Max

[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.

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

[Max H. <ma...@qu...>]

[...]

>
>> 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.
>
Ah found it, "devdocs/2003-05_SDLNotes" in the "sdldoc" CVS module.

>> * 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.
>
Cool. That means I can get working on it :-)

>> 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.
>

I suggest we first work with the old format to get the things mentioned 
above done. We can then decide if we want to switch to something else, 
or not.


[...]

> 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.
>
They have MySQL, works well for e.g. Fink.


Cheers,

Max

[Sdldoc-devel] Missing files

[Max H. <ma...@qu...>]

The following two files are referred to by the build system (and are 
also in the online version of SDLdoc), but apparently not in CVS.

events/SDL_GetEventFilter.sgml
video/SDL_GetClipRect.sgml

In addition I had to hack the build system a bit to get it to work 
here. For example it references the source files as if they were in a 
subdirector sdl_ref, which they aren't; I solved that with some 
symlinks. Also, I have to specify more than just two catalogs to get 
openjade to translate the SGML to HTML. But it *does* work.


Good thing the O'Reilly folks donated this DocBook book to me a couple 
years ago, time to get it out, and see how I can change e.g. things in 
the TOC etc. :-)


Cheers,

Max