On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Unless we are going to require reviewing for wiki changes now, too,
> there is no point in this entire discussion.
I beg to disagree: first, we again raised the GFDL issue with RMS,
we may have some new volunteers to help with web pages/documentation,
On Jul 11, 2005, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, a lot of projects don't even bother to distribute anything but
> HTML docs anymore (regardless of how they browse it).
And that's a pity, because it's a bit of a pain to turn the output of
grep -r regexp docs/HTML into something
Original Message
> From: Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Some notes on the Wiki
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Robert Thorpe wrote:
> > > I believe the Wi
Kurt Wall wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:27:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin took 34 lines to write:
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Robert Thorpe wrote:
Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially
when doing searchs.
You must be close to the only user i've met who us
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:27:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin took 34 lines to write:
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Robert Thorpe wrote:
> > Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially
> > when doing searchs.
>
> You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the in
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's see. The last time i tried to use info (the program) was about 6
> weeks ago,
I was refering to a recent version, not a recent use.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürn
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:21 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> > > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow
> >
> >
> I just had a quick quiz in the C++ IRC channel I was in, and very few
> people there like info, and very few are comfortable using it. There was
> a general agreement HTML, PDF and docbook are the best ways to recieve
> documentation.
>
> Chris
It's possible these people ride the shor
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>|
>| > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>| >
>| >>> Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser,
>| >>> especially when doing searchs.
>| >> You must be cl
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
|
| > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
| > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
| > internals manual in without review. Is that somethin
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
| > | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> > internals manual in without review. Is
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> | internals manual in without review. Is that som
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Most people i've met can't undertand the commands for info (pinfo is
nicer in this regard).
There exist many alternative info browsers (this includes konqueror).
Yet the amount of docs available in info
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
|
| > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
| >
| >>> Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser,
| >>> especially when doing searchs.
| >> You must be close to the only user i've met who
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> internals manual in without review. Is that something people are
> willing to consider and discuss?
I think t
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Monday 11 July 2005 23:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
| > >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
| > >> assist in review?
| > >
| > > I strongly support this (and was going
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> internals manual in without review. Is that something people are
> willing to consider and discuss?
Rather t
On Monday 11 July 2005 23:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
> >> assist in review?
> >
> > I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd
> > rather it be another li
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
>> assist in review?
> I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd rather
> it be another list though, say wiki-patches or doc-patches, because of the
> amoun
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
> where you said:
>> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if
>>
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most people i've met can't undertand the commands for info (pinfo is
> nicer in this regard).
There exist many alternative info browsers (this includes konqueror).
> Those who use info religiously seem to be emacs users, not "info browser"
> users.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when
doing searchs.
You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :)
I use it. Info pages suck in many wa
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 22:47 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | > Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when
> doing searchs.
> |
> | You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :)
>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially
when doing searchs.
You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :)
I use it. Info pages suck in many ways, but they're fast to load from an
xterm, fast to
> "Kevin" == Kevin Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kevin> Paul Koning wrote:
>>> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>
Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote:
>> >> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when
doing searchs.
|
| You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :)
Ahem; is your world that small?
-- Gaby
Paul Koning wrote:
"Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote:
>> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki
>> pages. But only if there is a consensus about this being the way
>> to go.
Josep
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Robert Thorpe wrote:
> > I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely
> > because it allows such an unencumbered contribution process.
> >
> > I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the Wiki has no value, but rather
> > that it's not a
> I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely
> because it allows such an unencumbered contribution process.
>
> I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the Wiki has no value, but rather
> that it's not a substitute for the more formal documentation. Were it
> not for
On Monday, July 11, 2005, at 08:30 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
In practice, people have already contributed significants amount of
documentation as comment because they disagree with the GFDL.
I'm of the opinion we never should have allowed the GFDL into our
source tree, no thanks should have b
I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely
because it allows such an unencumbered contribution process.
I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the Wiki has no value, but rather
that it's not a substitute for the more formal documentation. Were it
not for copyright issue
*sigh*
> To play the Devil's advocate: One could argue that someone contributing
> to the GCC code under the GPL does not agree with the GFDL, and therefore
> the FSF can't live up to its promise (that iirc it makes in the copyright
> assignment) to keep the code under a free license.
... if comm
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:19 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
> > > > such a statement would
On Monday 11 July 2005 17:21, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > We already can't do that. We can't move documentation from the manual
> > into the code, and vice versa, because of the GPL vs. GFDL issue.
>
> Actually, that's not true because *we* (or to be accurate the FSF) own
> the copyright on both.
T
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 16:22 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2005 16:19, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Would a blanket statement at the start of the wiki be enough?
> > Who gets to decide this?
>
> I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
> such a statement
Steven Bosscher writes:
> On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
> > > such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly
> > > not my intention to sign over
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
> > > such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly
> > > not my intenti
> --- Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.
> >
> > My line of thought was described in the text that
> > you removed:
> > "However, it would be very useful for us to
> transfer
> > information
> > from the wiki into the manual from time to time."
> >
I am suggest
On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
> > such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly
> > not my intention to sign over the various Wiki contributions I have
>
Steven Bosscher wrote:
I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly
not my intention to sign over the various Wiki contributions I have
made to the FSF.
This strikes me as shortsighted. If we're ge
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:41:25PM +0100, Haren Visavadia wrote:
> --- Diego Novillo wrote:
> > And we cannot
> > do that if we don't have cleared out the copyright
> > assignment of
> > wiki content.
>
> And so?
>
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.
My line of thought was described in
--- Diego Novillo wrote:
> And we cannot
> do that if we don't have cleared out the copyright
> assignment of
> wiki content.
And so?
___
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Ya
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:10:56PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> So, contribute to the manual then. And let the folks who prefer to
> work on the wiki work on the wiki.
>
I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely
because it allows such an unencumbered contribution proce
On Monday 11 July 2005 16:19, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Would a blanket statement at the start of the wiki be enough?
> Who gets to decide this?
I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough,
such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly
not my intenti
On Monday 11 July 2005 15:54, Paul Koning wrote:
> > "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote:
> >> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki
> >> pages. But only if there is a consensus about this
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote:
>> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki
>> pages. But only if there is a consensus about this being the way
>> to go.
Joseph> I'm sure it's the wron
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote:
I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki pages.
But only if there is a consensus about this being the way to go.
I'm sure it's the wrong way to go. I find a properly formatted and
indexed book far m
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote:
> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki pages.
> But only if there is a consensus about this being the way to go.
I'm sure it's the wrong way to go. I find a properly formatted and
indexed book far more convenient for lear
Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nobody is going to be blocked by this; no bootstrap will be broken; no
>> wrong code will be generated. This ain't code. In many common cases, the
>
> Wrong code will be generated when someone relies on subtly wrong
> information in the documentation.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> My personal position is that making documentation patches *blocked* by
> review (as happens with code) is wrong. The worst thing it can happen is
> that the documentation patch is wrong, and the doc maintainer can revert it
> in literally seconds (using
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
Yes. And the review was very detailed, and suggested that I had to redone to
wo
I converted this patch because I thought it would be helpful after
reading this message from Giovanni Bajo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00552.html
>
> I had provided this patch in the past, but was rejected:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
>
> I never had time
> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
where you said:
> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if
> it still seems desirable to have it as a coh
> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
where you said:
> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if
> it still seems desirable to have it as a coh
In fact, i had someone recently send me a *104 page PDF file* on how RTL
really works organized in a way that most developers would probably find
better.
If the guy has copyright assignment on file, I can volunteer to convert
this. Is the PDF made from latex? If so I have some scripts to aid.
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
As far as reviewing/applying/approving patches for wwwdocs is concerned,
and implementing suggestions sent to the GCC lists, I'm committed to do
that, and do so within one "online day" if possible in any way.
I'd like to applaud you for that effort.
However, I just don't
> In fact, i had someone recently send me a *104 page PDF file* on how
> RTL really works organized in a way that most developers would
> probably find better.
So share it with the masses, put it in the wiki.
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > 3. We should seriously consider writing and maintaining different guides
| > and references than the ones we have.
|
| Nobody won't object to that, I guess.
Indeed.
-- Gaby
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > However, I just don't have the bandwidth to dig through Wiki and port
| > things over, and it's not exactly an efficient nor motivating modus
| > operandi either.
| I would submit them from the wiki if i felt people found more use for it
| in
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
|
| Gaby> That is a question I would have loved answered did I endorse its
| Gaby> predicate.
|
| Then by all means continue to use the existing docs in your world
| and let others create more useful documentation
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:50 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> > a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> > should find useful*.
>
> I'm sure you are aware of the
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> HowToPrepareATestcase was submitted but never reviewed which is why it
> moved to the wiki.
It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg0032
On Jul 10, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a
parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for p
On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:43, Richard Kenner wrote:
> This happens because
> 1. People don't want to write texinfo,
>
> People don't like to write comments either, but I don't think most people
> would suggest we stop requiring comments.
>
> The documentation style of the GNU project is te
On Sunday 10 July 2005 20:14, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The issue is not complaining that people do useful things. Rather,
> whether the updated and and more useful documentation of GCC shall be
> moved outside GCC main docuementation sources.
This is just a matter of where a contributor wants to
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
> current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
> because they are out of date, but because they don't give them
> information on what they really want to know.
I
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> should find useful*.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for
gcc/doc/*.texi as such. The main
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
Gaby> That is a question I would have loved answered did I endorse its
Gaby> predicate.
Then by all means continue to use the existing docs in your world
and let others create more useful documentation for developers in our
world, which appears to be on a d
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| These are all related causes of the effect that our documentation and
| the process behind it hasn't worked for as long as i've been hacking gcc
| (5 or 6 years now). Everyone seems to pretend "oh, it's just the damn
| lazy developers fault, they
> It appears to me that you're relating unrelated effects and causes.
Not really.
People don't contribute to the current docs for the following main
reasons, AFAICT and have heard from people, *in order of number of
complaints i've heard from people*:
1. They don't want to send continual incompl
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
|
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :)
|
| However, my real point still stands:
|
| 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
| current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This happens because
> 1. People don't want to write texinfo, and continually submit patches to
> update the docs little by little (remember, people work on docs the same
> way they do on code. Most of the time, what they have written is not
> complete
This happens because
1. People don't want to write texinfo,
People don't like to write comments either, but I don't think most people
would suggest we stop requiring comments.
The documentation style of the GNU project is texinfo and that choice
was made for sound reasons, which continue
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
> | > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
| > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
| > universe at that, with quite some duplic
Sorry for the tone, i've had a frustrating day for other reasons :)
However, my real point still stands:
1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
because they are out of date, but because they don't g
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
> to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
> universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
Have you not yet discov
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for project lists, "Hot Bugzillas" lists and
similar, but
80 matches
Mail list logo
