On 2/13/12 1:00 AM, "ext [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 10/02/2012, at 5:13 AM, ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >I think there are a few issues here: > >1) Only Dimitri touches Doxygen code, and it doesn't look like >contributions go in (at least not under the authors name). This means >that the functionality to support Qt's extensive documentation needs to >be implemented by Dimitri alone. Thus, Nokia's team cannot be working on >enhancing Doxygen to get it up to par with the current output from qdoc. > > >As someone who has submitted a number of bug reports to the Doxygen >project, Dmitri has been pretty good at responding to issues. As you'd >expect, the better the quality of your issue description, the better the >response. Providing a means to reproduce a problem typically gets a very >good response. > Providing a bug report is something different from providing patches that add new functionality. (as seen with Qt before open-governance) > >2) From what I've seen of attempts to set up Doxygen, none of them have >proven to create output quality on par with what qdoc produces. This is >obviously due to qdoc only having 1 mission, to produce the >documentation output that the Qt documentation team think is optimal, >while Doxygen is a tool for a multitude of outputs. However, is does >leave a quality gap between the documentation we want verses the >documentation we can get out of the tool. A gap the documentation team >would want to close, which again points to 1). > > >A counter-argument here is that for those projects that use Doxygen >rather than qdoc for their own documentation, it means that you can't >incorporate Qt's documentation into your own. This is precisely the case >for us, for example. We provide a large Qt-based framework with >Doxygen-generated help content. We can't provide links to docs for the Qt >classes, etc. because it uses qdoc. We like the Doxygen output and it >works well for us, and I suspect there are a lot more projects out there >using Doxygen than qdoc. So while qdoc might result in better Qt >documentation on its own, does the choice of using qdoc more commonly >result in poorer documentation for projects that use Qt? > I am just reading the Doxygen manual, and it says: "Another case where you should use doxytag is if you want to create a tag file for the Qt documentation.". Would it not be an option to extend qdoc to output a correct tag file, which Doxygen can understand? (assuming we keep qdoc). Whatever is chosen (updating qdoc, or changing to Doxygen): The task is not small, and therefore it would be nice if there would be more contributors than just me and Martin Smith. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a sit-down at the Contributors Summit (if people are interested). Casper _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
