I'm not sure if we want to go down this route (doxygen), but it seems an
option to me.
We have discussed it many times. The management decision has always been to
proceed with qdoc. I don't feel strongly either way, but if I'm asked I would
say we should stay with qdoc and just move qdoc
23.09.2012, 14:25, Frederik Gladhorn gladh...@kde.org:
Hi,
since we were discussing how to maintain QDoc and how to fix issues, I poked
at
doxygen again.
I also sent a mail to it's maintainer who responded quickly and friendly.
I'm not sure if we want to go down this route, but it seems
On Monday 24. September 2012 13.36.10 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
23.09.2012, 14:25, Frederik Gladhorn gladh...@kde.org:
Hi,
since we were discussing how to maintain QDoc and how to fix issues, I
poked at doxygen again.
I also sent a mail to it's maintainer who responded quickly and
Hi,
since we were discussing how to maintain QDoc and how to fix issues, I poked at
doxygen again.
I also sent a mail to it's maintainer who responded quickly and friendly.
I'm not sure if we want to go down this route, but it seems an option to me.
It means a lot of work, but so does maintaining
: [Development] Documentation and Modularization
On Wednesday September 19 2012, Gladhorn Frederik wrote:
[...]
Since we don't see a way to fix the modularized build of the docs without
big issues (predictive links seem hard to get right and we couldn't show
warnings about them easily), we propose
On Wednesday September 19 2012, Gladhorn Frederik wrote:
[...]
Since we don't see a way to fix the modularized build of the docs without
big issues (predictive links seem hard to get right and we couldn't show
warnings about them easily), we propose to actually make use of a mixed
approach to
