On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > Now I'll admit it seems like make-work to me because I would not plan to > ever look at the formatted output myself. But I guess I don't understand > the audience for this formatted output.
I have been watching from the side lines so far, as I have a view that is very much like Peffs, if I were to dictate my opinion onto the project, we'd: * put all internal API docs into headerfiles. * get rid of all Documentation/technical/ that describes things at a function level. So the remaining things are high level docs such as protocol, hash transition plan, partial clones... But I'd want to understand why we are not doing this (obvious to me) best thing, I have the impression other people use the docs differently. How are these docs (for example api-oid-array or api-revision-walking) used? I usually tend to use git-grep a lot when looking for a function, just to jump to the header file and read the comment there and go around the header file looking if we have a better suited thing. (Also I tend to like to have fewer files open, such that I prefer a header file of reasonable size over 2 files, one docs and one header) So when I find a function documented in Docs/technical, I would first read there, then go to the header to see the signature and then make use of it. If I recall an earlier discussion on this topic, I recall Junio saying that this *may* pollute the header files, as for example sha1-array.h is easy to grok in its entirety, and makes it easy to see what functions regarding oid_arrays are available. A counter example would be hashmap.h, as that requires some scrolling and skimming. > These are APIs internal to Git > itself. We would not generally want to install gitapi-oid-array into > /usr/share/man, because only people actually working on Git would be > able to use it. So it sounds like a convenience for a handful of > developers (who like to look at this manpage versus the source). It > doesn't seem like the cost/benefit is there. If this type of docs makes Ævar more productive, I am all for keeping it. > And if we were going to generate something external, would it make more > sense to write in a structured format like doxygen? I am not a big fan > of it myself, but at least from there you can generate a more richly > interconnected set of documentation. That sounds sensible to me as the additional burden of yet-another-tool is only imposed to the developers, but doxygen would provide a better output in my experience. Stefan
