On 6/27/07, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark Ramm wrote: > > I think we should use pudge for API doc generation, and I want to be > > fairly hard-core about getting good docstrings, comments and an API > > overview together so new developers can jump into TG2 development > > quickly. > > > > My reasoning for picking Pudge is simple -- it's what's used in > > pylons, paste, and other sub-projects. > > Yes, but we all hate it ;) > > Really, I think you should look around a bit more. And get back to us, > because we'd love to change over. There's been some recent work on this > for the standard Python documentation (to use reST); I would suggest > looking into that, as the output looks quite good. > Hi just a FYI, last time we discuss about this I did some tests on top of epydoc. results still up at http://tg.maetico.com/api/, although I haven't updated it in a while I believe the ones there are 1.0.1 (sorry I have been idle).
epydoc was good enough. Although IT had a personal problem with the widgets modules. Maybe we'll have better luck with toscawidgets. As for pudge I remember the reason we didn't pick it is because it had no active maintainer, although I believe someone was going to pick it up. discussion in trac: http://trac.turbogears.org/ticket/104 > -- > Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org > | Write code, do good | http://topp.openplans.org/careers > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
