[fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source
daniel.mantione at freepascal.org
Thu Dec 22 11:48:45 CET 2005
Op Wed, 21 Dec 2005, schreef L:
> > We've looked at the people on the mailing list many times, but we've
> > never seen people sticking out their neck and actually doing something
> > along these lines. It takes long-range commitment, which is probably
> > what scares many people off...
> I've volunteered to help, but I think there are too many conflicts with what I would
> use to program a website versus the current system in place. All I heard was "we
> don't need any concepts or ideas, we need people to help" But I did offer to help -
> don't deny that.
Exactly, we cannot have a lot of people wanting to throw eveything away
and their own thing. That'll cause a horrible mess. We are flexible
however. For a good plan, that doesn't conflict too much, help will be
more than welcome.
> This is why time after time I keep recommending more pascal users to
> make their own
> websites. Many of us don't have the same website engines or choice of website
> databases. Better 50 users create 50 high quality websites on Pascal than 50 users
> all arguing about what the engine behind the doc system is going to be.
Yes, but people need to work together. An example of a failed site is
www.friends-of-fpc.org. The idea is good, but there is only one man behind
it, which caused the website never to have attractive content. A very good
example how to do it is pascalgamedevelopment. I would definately like to
see more of those sites. Most PR should be done outside freepascal.org.
> We are discussing an open documentation system that does not require and SVN account
> or patching. The whole idea of an open documentation system that does not require an
> SVN account, is that you do not need to "stick your neck in" - you only need to
> stick your pinky finger in! You are proving my point by saying I must "stick my
> neck in" . I shouldn't have to stick my neck in. It should be one click shopping.
> For updating the compiler code itself? Yes, that you should definitely have to stick
> your neck in. That is more complicated, for sure. It's got nothing to do with PR
> right now, really. The popularity might come as a side effect to a good manual. But
> I'm not saying it is the reason Pascal isn't as popular as C. i.e., I'm not pushing
> PR here.. that's not what I'm getting at.
> My only fear of building a documentation engine on my domain, is that I will reinvent
> the wheel. I'd rather make improvements or suggestions to the current doc system in
> place, so people don't have to run to 60 different websites to read different
> documentation engines out there. It's not that I'm afraid of grunt work - I can throw
> together a system - but I'd rather not if it will cause more harm, causing users to
> run around to my doc site, freepascal's doc site, another doc site, and another doc
> site, etc.
Indeed, writing fpc documentation outside freepascal.org is definately not
a good idea. You want the community to help writing documentation. That
is a good idea, we're evaluating the options to do that as well, but not
very easily implemented, so should be a well thought out plan. Help is
> You do have to have discussions, before you implement something big like this. I'm
> not just talking out my my fat mouth here. I'm honestly fearing that having more than
> one documentation engine out there will cause some harm, instead of some good. That,
> and of course I don't program in PHP any more, so I may not even be of help to the
> current freepascal engine anyway (and last I looked, I couldn't see the PHP code on
> SVN anyway - just html. Maybe I missed it).
The only part of the web site that uses php is the bug tracker. The new
bug tracker will be written in Free Pascal.
More information about the fpc-devel