[fpc-pascal] State of FPC docs.rant

David Emerson dle3ab at angelbase.com
Tue Apr 27 00:51:16 CEST 2010

On Mon 26 Apr 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Florian Klaempfl het geskryf:
> > 
> > No git mirror ;)? I think the docs are one of the fpc related 
> > repositories where using a dvcs might be useful.
> Apparently I am banned for life mentioning the "product that may not be
> named" in FPC or Lazarus mailing lists. :-)
> As for moving to such a DVCS... why bother? I think I can count on two
> hands the amount of commits per year. As for it being a "pilot" of a DVCS -
>  that would be a pointless exercise with such a slow moving repository.

I would love to contribute to the documentation -- I fancy myself good at 
writing, explaining, and making examples -- but as noted earlier in the thread, 
the barrier to entry is quite high.

I'm far more comfortable using git than svn, and if there was such a repo it 
would help lower the barrier to entry for me at least. The lack of a simple 
tutorial on how to add to the documentation still remains a significant 
barrier, however.

Graeme, I have to ask... on the one hand, you noted that having fragmented 
documentations over various locations is unhelpful; and on the other hand, I've 
heard you talk quite a bit about your DocView / INF project; I note in 
particular that you mentioned rewriting the FPC language reference in IPF. How 
is this not an example of the fragmentation you refer to?

Don't get me wrong -- based on your explanations, I think DocView is a great 
idea, and I have been looking forward to trying it out, but I continue to 
wonder how well it will integrate with the present doc system and if it might 
lower the barrier to entry for contributing to the documentation.


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list