> When Alexandre have applied a documentation patch he will need to
> do ./tools/make_documentation or something, but then similar thing
> are required even now for debug messages to take one example.
>
On a tangential note, it seems to me that we're not really
addressing the whole job: a lot of the Wine 'documentation'
really lives on the web page. (I believe that the web page is
tracked by the web cvs tree, but I could be wrong).
In fact, some parts of the wine/documentation tree
are, IMHO, out of date with respect to the winehq files.
It seems to me that it would be nice if all the documentation
lived in one place, and had a well understood way of being
updated and maintained. Personally, I think that DocBook is a good
choice for this, but I do see some of the downsides to it.
What if we were to do the following (no flames please, I'm
just tossing out an idea):
A. Create a new repository, say wine-docs (or use
a subdir of the web cvs)
B. Move the contents of wine/documentation (in DocBook form)
to the new repository, and move the 'Documentation'
portion of www.winehq.com to this new repository.
C. Have the current web-cvs maintainers (Eric, Ove, et all)
take over maintenance of changes to wine-docs.
Thus, I would submit a change in documentation as
a patch against wine-docs. Frequent contributors could
be granted commit access to wine-docs.
Thoughts?
Jeremy
