It seems like everybody in Python land uses Sphinx and ReStructuredText for documentation. However if this is just API docs then I don't know what the benefit is to using a system like Sphinx over a core library like pydoc, since we already have Asciidoc for the primary Kudu documentation.
As long as the Python API docs are auto-generated, easy to build, and look nice, I would be okay with whatever seems to work well. Mike On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Jordan, > > I guess the silence here means that no one has a strong opinion :) I wonder > if the user@ list would have any more thoughts. > > I'm curious, though, what exactly this doc tool would do? If it's "prose" > documentation, maybe we should stick to the adoc style that we use for the > rest of the documentation, and just give the Python client its own page? If > it's more strictly API docs, isn't that sort of built in using Python doc > strings? (I'm not much of a Python programmer) > > -Todd > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Jordan Birdsell < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Anyone have any opinions/thoughts on Python API documentation? Pyspark, > > pandas and others use Sphinx, so I'm thinking python devs would be pretty > > comfortable with that format. > > > > Jordan > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
