On Thursday 12 April 2012 16:30:39 casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote: > >> While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above > >> are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly. > >> > >> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links > >> that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be > >> able to see relations between some major classes, like QObject -> > >> QWidget. You'd only be able to see QWidget -> QObject. These kinds of > >> links are not something that does not happen. The QObject docs are a > >> good example of that, as they actually reference QWidget. Personally, I > >> also regulary use the Inherited by list. I would hate to see that go. > >> > >> I don't have a solution ready though. > > > > I also don't like it. What is the benefit of doing that? what went wrong > > with make docs? > > There are 2 main problems with the current system: > 1. Nobody was running "make docs" on their local machines (and verifying the > output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last > December. Having the documentation modularized will at some point > (hopefully soon) allow us to put documentation generation in the CI system. > This would allow us to catch patches causing qdoc errors. > 2. It was/is completely unclear how the system works, there hasn't been any > QML documentation at http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/5.0/ for multiple > weeks now (I believe 4, maybe more).
But none of those problem will be fixed by modularizing the docs by libraries. Or am i missing something? (putting make docs in the CI is a good idea) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
