I am also open to that. Anything to improve the readability of the documentation.
I was also playing with the idea to generate the entire 'website' using sphinx on RTD. So instead of the wiki pages on bitbucket. Rob On 31 May 2017 at 06:22, Benjamin Moran <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally have no issue with that. > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:06:35 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >> >> On a totally separate note, how open are you all to changes to the theme? >> I find the small font on the class and function names hard to read. >> >> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Sounds great, I'm in! >>> >>> BTW, I'm already all in on Python 3, but it looks like the current docs >>> are omitting all methods on all classes and I suspect Python 3 is the >>> reason. I'm not sure I'll be able to track that one down. I opened a ticket >>> for it yesterday on BitBucket. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 30, 2017, at 05:16 AM, Rob van der Most wrote: >>> >>> We could also add a branch on bitbucket? We can then give you write >>> access to the official repository and I can set up a RTD job for generating >>> the new documentation. >>> >>> It would be excellent if we can get rid of the sphinx patches. >>> >>> One word of warning: you need to use Python 3 to generate the >>> documentation due to https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/1641 >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> On 30 May 2017 at 09:05, Benjamin Moran <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Sounds good to me. Let me know when you have the fork ready, and we can >>> start hacking away on it. >>> Having a public site up will be a great for getting feedback on the >>> direction. >>> >>> Speaking of docstrings, what are your thoughts on the current docstring >>> format? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 1:58:51 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> I forgot to add number zero: make sure all the existing modules have >>> complete docstrings! I'd rather focus on that before anything else. >>> >>> But yeah, I'm interested in doing a lot or most of this. Remember that >>> there's no risk of breaking the existing docs, because the API rst files >>> are already valid. >>> >>> Your proposal is a good one. Let's do that. I can use my fork and just >>> host the static site on GitHub Pages. >>> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 9:02:53 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>> >>> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me (espeically #4), but I admit I'm not >>> as familiar with documentation as I should be. >>> It would be ideal to start hacking on this without breaking the existing >>> docs, which are being automatically built by Read the Docs. By the way I >>> believe Rob has set this up, and has ownership of that Read the Docs >>> account. (It was set up before I started contributing). >>> >>> There are Sphinx patches included with pyglet to handle the event stuff, >>> but we probably should check if they're even needed anymore with recent >>> versions. >>> >>> If you are feeling up to spearheading this effort, I'm happy to work >>> with you on it. Maybe we can work off of a fork to start, and set up a >>> temporary online docs page. Does that make sense, or what would be easiest? >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:26:13 PM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> In my ideal world, the pyglet project would take the following steps: >>> >>> 1. "Freeze" the current contents of doc/api. All further updates will be >>> done by hand. >>> 2. Check each page by hand. Make any relevant cleanup tweaks. From what >>> I can see now, this mostly involves getting rid of bogus "Variables" and >>> "Defines" sections that just list random imports from `future`. >>> 3. When it looks good, delete all the doc/api-generating code and just >>> make sure API updates are reflected in the docs. >>> 4. Go to town updating each individual page to be as good as it can >>> possibly be! Module pages can become more topic-oriented where appropriate, >>> rather than having a hard divide between "programming guide" and "API >>> reference." Django is a good example of this, although they take it too far >>> for my taste. Some of the pyglet modules already do a good job. >>> >>> The current system is actually really nice in that you've already got >>> valid rst, you just need to stop doing the intermediate step! By removing >>> the rst-generating step, you just end up with a working set of rst files. >>> >>> It might sound like you'll lose time manually tweaking the rst files >>> over time, but in practice it's adding/removing an `..autoclass::` here and >>> there, and you more than make up for it in reduced time spent fighting with >>> the tools. (Spread out over newbie contributors like me, of course!) >>> >>> Speaking of event documentation specifically, it's definitely very >>> important! But it's exactly the kind of thing you can handle with a Sphinx >>> extension rather than a preprocessing step, which I believe is what is >>> already happening. You might not need to make any changes at all. But if >>> you do, I have a lot of experience writing Sphinx extensions from scratch >>> and can probably help out. >>> >>> What that looks like in practice is that you'll have a class docstring >>> with a directive like this: >>> >>> .. pyglet:event:: on_eos >>> >>> Fires when the current source ends. >>> >>> You can make the HTML look pretty much however you want. The mrjob >>> project uses it to define[1] and collect[2] command line options. I wrote >>> the extension[3] to make it trivial for documentation authors. (I disliked >>> the experience so much I wrote a competing documentation system[4], but I >>> wouldn't try to convince you to switch.) >>> >>> [1] http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/configs-had >>> oopy-runners.html#option-check_input_paths >>> [2] http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/configs-reference.html >>> [3] https://github.com/Yelp/mrjob/blob/master/docs/options_extension.py >>> [4] http://steveasleep.com/computerwords/ >>> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:04:57 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>> >>> Hey Steve, >>> >>> No offense taken here! I'm very much in support of improving the >>> maintainability of the documentation, and lowering barriers to >>> contributing. I'd ask Rob, Leif and others to chime in here with their own >>> opinions of course, but I think everyone would agree that improvements are >>> good. >>> >>> For my part, I'm more than willing to put in the manual work of cleaning >>> up and rewriting docstrings if necessary. I'm not intimately familiar with >>> the documentation, but I know the one concern we have is that the event >>> classes are documented correctly. I'm not sure if this is something that is >>> now able to be handled py Sphinx without patching, but maybe so. >>> >>> What would you say is a good path forward? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:46:29 AM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Just realized my first sentence might sound a bit ungrateful, but I >>> promise that is not the case. I'm just trying to make a point and express >>> my opinions about best practices. :-) >>> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:45:47 PM UTC-7, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> I just spent some time improving some of the docs, and I must stay, I am >>> moderately horrified at the autogenerated rst files. Why not just write >>> them by hand like everybody else and use autoclass/:members:? It's not at >>> all onerous to keep them up to date. >>> >>> As someone who writes a LOT of Python docs, largely for fun ( >>> https://mrjob.readthedocs.io, https://pillow.readthedocs.io, >>> http://steveasleep.com/clubsandwich, ...) this honestly makes me >>> hesitant to put a lot of effort into contributing, because it's an unusual >>> and limiting way to do things. >>> >>> The epydoc layout of one class per page with a strict structure of >>> [inheritance, methods, attributes] is not good for discovery or inline >>> narrative documentation. And the intermediate api/*.txt-generating layer is >>> both a barrier to contribution, and limits the flexibility of the >>> individual pages. >>> >>> So above and beyond fixing the many, many missing docstrings, my number >>> one request (which I would gladly do myself!) is that the API docs be >>> switched over a more conventional Sphinx setup. >>> >>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:54:05 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Steve, >>> >>> I found the markdown files on your github. They'll probably need a few >>> paragraphs adjusted to fit the rest of the documentation, but it's a good >>> addition and certainly better than what we have now. >>> >>> I was also looking through some old conversations on the mailing list, >>> and it looks like we can remove a lot of old epydoc cruft from the codebase. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+9, Steve Johnson wrote: >>> >>> It's in Markdown. I'm sure something like Pandoc could convert it with >>> good fidelity. It also has a sample code repo. >>> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:42:59 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the offer Steve. I think we talked about this in the past but >>> didn't follow up. >>> It would be a good first step to dump your site into rst, and then edit >>> it from there. >>> The raw site wouldn't happen to be in rst already, would it? >>> >>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:59:39 AM UTC+9, Steve wrote: >>> >>> I am interested in helping out with this. I've been a pyglet user since >>> 2008 and always thought the docs were pretty bad in comparison to projects >>> of similar size and maturity. My own best documentation work is this: >>> http://mrjob.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ >>> >>> Specifically, the current pyglet docs do not actually document all the >>> APIs! You have to read the source code and see the old epydoc docstrings, >>> or at least this was true as of a few weeks ago. The media.Player class in >>> particular has this problem. >>> >>> I am the author of this out-of-date tutorial: http://steveasleep.c >>> om/pyglettutorial.html >>> Now that pyglet is being maintained again, I would love to just >>> contribute the tutorial to the actual docs and redirect my page. And when I >>> get some time, I will help fill out the rest of the pyglet docs. But I can >>> make no promises about when that will be. :-) >>> >>> On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:34:30 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Moran wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'm looking for ideas for how the pyglet documentation can be improved, >>> both in terms of missing things or sections that should be added. >>> I've personally always found the technical aspects of the documentation >>> to be quite good, but I hear often that the documentation as a whole is not >>> so clear for new users. >>> In particular, the "writing a pyglet application" section is perhaps a >>> bit to light. >>> >>> Better than suggestions would be if anyone wants to get involved with >>> writing something new or improving existing sections. Please let me know if >>> you're interested in getting involved. Even if you're not comfortable with >>> making pull requests, I'd be more than happy to work directly with you to >>> handle contributions. >>> >>> -Ben >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "pyglet-users" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "pyglet-users" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pyglet-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
