On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:05:19PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > > > On 28 April 2010 11:59, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >On 27/04/10 13:52, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 27 April 2010 14:18, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>Any ideas on how to keep the code in the documentation and the actual > >>>demos in sync? Should we have a script that copies all the source > >>>files? Or should we do the opposite: extract the demos from the > >>>documentation? > >> > >>Good question, initially I thought copying from DOLFIN to documentation > >>was the way to go, but on second thought the other way around might be > >>better. > >>The reason is that if the demos break, then they will be fixed in the > >>documentation which makes is more likely that the accompanying text (and > >>code snippets) will also be corrected. > >> > > > >We'll usually have the source code for a demo broken into pieces in the > >documentation with an explanation for each part of the code (rather than one > >big chunk), so how would this work with syncing to the actual demo code? > > I think the entire main.cpp file (and UFL ) should be available for download > as it is now. > Then, if a demo breaks one will have to manually modify the code snippets and > the text. > (and of course the code in main.cpp and the UFL file if appropriate)
Shouldn't it be possible to write a script that extracts the pieces and patches them together? That way, the buildbot will test nightly that the documentation makes sense. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
