On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Brad Jorsch bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Both Manual:Hooks/foo and all the $wgFoo pages can definitely benefit
from some automation.
I know the reason I usually don't update the Manual pages
Le 04/06/13 18:00, Antoine Musso a écrit :
Hello,
Since we introduced hooks in MediaWiki, the documentation has been
maintained in a flat file /docs/hooks.txt . Over the week-end I have
converted the content of that file to let Doxygen recognize it.
The patchset is:
This is great. I think building HTML from source files is the way to go for
dry reference material like this.
You need links both ways so people know the other format is available. The
hooks.txt should say The documentation at
https://doc.wikimedia.org/mw-hooks/hooks_mainpage.htmlis regularly
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:09:26 -0700, S Page sp...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If mediawiki.org's extension template linked hooks in use to this doc
instead of mediawiki.org/Hooks:xyz pages then we could retire the latter
pages and have less stuff to maintain.
MediaWiki.org doesn't have
I've used (and use) doxygen+txt+mediawiki and was very helpful(still
include myself in new dev).
But, on the other hand, in the hooks (without doxygen), I always had
trouble knowing when and where it is loaded. And it is always hard to
figure out which one to use.
Probably a newbie problem, but
Frankly I think we should try automating stuff towards our wiki rather than
using it as a way to
take stuff out. Find ways to integrate this data automatically into parts of
the wiki. Bots if you
ABSOLUTELY need to. But preferably instead extensions and Lua stuff. Things
that provide the
data
On 04.06.2013, 22:33 Antoine wrote:
I would myself drop the mediawiki.org documentation in favour of inline
documentation which is thus kept in sync with the code. I barely update
the mw.org doc when doing changes.
How large inline documentation can be? The benefit of a wiki is that
you can
Le 05/06/13 16:59, Max Semenik a écrit :
How large inline documentation can be? The benefit of a wiki is that
you can have large pages with a lot of documentation, examples and
_links_ - not something you can do in a comment.
Doxygen has support for examples, you could even get them out of the
Le 04/06/13 19:40, Brad Jorsch a écrit :
The result is pretty. But personally I'll probably continue to just
look in hooks.txt if I need the info in there, and the markup in the
(now-misnamed) file is rather ugly. Not that the existing file isn't
also ugly, just less so.
An interesting
Hello,
Since we introduced hooks in MediaWiki, the documentation has been
maintained in a flat file /docs/hooks.txt . Over the week-end I have
converted the content of that file to let Doxygen recognize it.
The patchset is:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/66128/
I have used that patch to
Looks pretty nice. My only complaint is that on the list page the hook
header text is the same font size and weight as the Parameters header. I
know it's indented, so you can sort of tell, but for ease of use purposes I
think we should somehow change that.
- The hooks are documented in a
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Since we introduced hooks in MediaWiki, the documentation has been
maintained in a flat file /docs/hooks.txt . Over the week-end I have
converted the content of that file to let Doxygen recognize it.
The patchset is:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Brad Jorsch bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Since we introduced hooks in MediaWiki, the documentation has been
maintained in a flat file /docs/hooks.txt . Over the week-end I have
converted
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Brad Jorsch bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr
wrote:
Since we introduced hooks in MediaWiki, the documentation has been
Le 04/06/13 20:03, Ryan Lane a écrit :
I've never understood why we have some subsection of documentation stuck in
the tree. It makes no sense. If we want to include docs with the software
shouldn't we just dump tagged docs from mediawiki.org into the tree, per
release? Right now we have
On 4 June 2013 19:00, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
Thoughts ?
I had taken another approach in Translate which was designed to be
easy to sync to wiki:
*
https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FTranslate.git/2cd676fd53e4d2dd45ac22972175739f0b3e2bf0/hooks.txt
*
On 06/04/2013 02:03 PM, Ryan Lane wrote:
I've never understood why we have some subsection of documentation stuck in
the tree. It makes no sense. If we want to include docs with the software
shouldn't we just dump tagged docs from mediawiki.org into the tree, per
release? Right now we have
17 matches
Mail list logo
