#6495: Build the reference manual incrementally
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
       Reporter:  mpatel                       |         Owner:  tba         
           Type:  enhancement                  |        Status:  needs_work  
       Priority:  major                        |     Milestone:  sage-5.0    
      Component:  documentation                |    Resolution:              
       Keywords:                               |   Work issues:  citations   
Report Upstream:  N/A                          |     Reviewers:  Volker Braun
        Authors:  Mitesh Patel, John Palmieri  |     Merged in:              
   Dependencies:  #12016                       |      Stopgaps:              
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------

Comment (by leif):

 Replying to [comment:68 jhpalmieri]:
 >  - I really like the idea of the invpickle builder, so please continue
 with that. I don't have any better suggestions for the name.

 One should perhaps just expand the name to contain "inventory"; "pickle"
 is IMHO minor (or irrelevant) and won't tell most(?) people much.

 >  - The verbosity of intersphinx is a minor issue. If we can reduce it,
 that would be fine, but it's not the highest priority, in my opinion.

 Mine, too.  Although I hate Sphinx's / Sage's current messages already,
 especially since ''"Build succeeded.  The built documents can be found in
 ..."'' is '''always''' printed, so is plain wrong in case of an error.
 (We tried to fix that once, but then I think Jeroen decided to keep it as
 is.)

 >  - I think it shouldn't be too hard to parallelize building the rest of
 the docs. We want to do it so that hitting ctrl-c will quit the build. I
 think we should try using tools from sage.parallel rather than the Python
 multiprocessing module. If you want to work on that, that would be great.

 Why not just use `make`?  Either add (and change the) targets in the top-
 level `Makefile`, or add one to `devel/sage/doc/`.  To me seems cleanest
 (preferably the latter), and docbuilding IMHO shouldn't depend [more] on
 the Sage library [as needed / it already does].

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6495#comment:70>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.

Reply via email to