Re: Attacking the documentation monster

[Martin Schanzenbach]

Hi all,

I created a new separate repo here for the new handbook format:
https://git.gnunet.org/gnunet-handbook.git
As you can see, I have decided to use markdown instead of rst.

We can include it as as submodule for gnunet.git when the time comes.
I have already "translated" some of the chapters from the old handbook,
but I do not want a 1:1 copy as we should use this chance to improve it.
You can see the current state here:
https://docs.gnunet.org/doc-ng

It is integrated with CI so it should always be up to date.
We will integrate the work by Willow asap.
If you want to tackle any parts and improve them, feel free to send us
patches/diffs.
As it is now markdown, it should be quite easy to contribute.

BR
Martin

Excerpts from Willow Liquorice's message of 2022-05-24 22:19:38 +0100:
> Ah, you can do it through pandoc. I'll bear that in mind and see about 
> adapting it to our repository.
> 
> On 24/05/2022 22:16, Nikita Ronja Gillmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > qemu did this a while back it seems
> > 
> > On 5/24/22 22:38, Willow Liquorice wrote:
> >> As an aside, *does anyone know of any tools to convert TeXinfo to 
> >> reST*? This migration is going to be much smoother if there are.
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20200226113034.6741-19-pbonzini@redhat.com/
> >  
> > 
> >> - Willow
> >>
> >> On 24/05/2022 18:01, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> >>> The doxygen configuration file in Git just had an ancient version 
> >>> number. I've fixed that now. The rest was up-to-date ;-).
> >>>
> >>> -Christian
> >>>
> >>> On 5/23/22 16:24, Willow Liquorice wrote:
> >>>> Just look at https://docs.gnunet.org/doxygen/html/index.html and you'll
> >>>> see what I mean.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Willow
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23/05/2022 15:23, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> >>>>> I cannot even find a version number on https://docs.gnunet.org/, so 
> >>>>> that's likely not what you are refering to. So where exactly are 
> >>>>> you looking to find documentation for 0.11.x? Likely some code to 
> >>>>> update some location is not working (or was never written, and 
> >>>>> someone put something out manually...).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Christian
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 5/23/22 16:16, Willow Liquorice wrote:
> >>>>>> Alright, doc/sphinx it is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The handbook is already intended for two wildly different 
> >>>>>> audiences, what with being both a user's and developer's manual. 
> >>>>>> Having the source code documentation in one place (and possibly 
> >>>>>> better organised) might make it easier to work with, and help keep 
> >>>>>> the Developer's Manual up-to-date.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On another note, are the online source docs even up to date? The 
> >>>>>> indicated version on them is 0.11.x, which is several years gone 
> >>>>>> at this point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best wishes,
> >>>>>>      Willow
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 23/05/2022 08:39, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 5/23/22 00:57, Willow Liquorice wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hello again,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the info, good to hear that I've got most of it. 
> >>>>>>>> Setting up a branch in my local GNUnet repository, to start 
> >>>>>>>> experimenting with Sphinx, as I write this. Seeing as there's 
> >>>>>>>> some experience with the software in the project already, where 
> >>>>>>>> would be the most sensible place to put the root directory? My 
> >>>>>>>> thinking is either the repository root or the doc folder.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Definitively doc/, I think doc/sphinx/ would be good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would it be sensible to migrate to Sphinx throughout the whole 
> >>>>>>>> GNUnet repository? Breathe (https://www.breathe-doc.org/) could 
> >>>>>>>> very well make the transition easy, as I think it would allow us 
> >>>>>>>> to read the Doxygen comments that are already present in the 
> >>>>>>>> source code.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure importing the Doxygen makes sense, that's very 
> >>>>>>> different from the main handbook/tutorial/man-pages both in terms 
> >>>>>>> of style and audience.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> my 2 cents
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Christian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best wishes,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>      Willow Liquorice
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2022 22:27, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Willow,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We've been using RST/Sphinx for the GNU Taler documentation, 
> >>>>>>>>> and it can generate reasonable TeXinfo. From that experience, 
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not against converting the existing documentation to RST.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As far as finding the documentation, I think you found most of 
> >>>>>>>>> it, except maybe the RFC-style specs at https://lsd.gnunet.org/.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The handbook is supposed to cover things in depth, with 
> >>>>>>>>> different chapters for installation (for the various 
> >>>>>>>>> platforms), users (by application, explaining what each 
> >>>>>>>>> application can do and how to use it) and developers (by 
> >>>>>>>>> subsystem, explaining how each subsystem is supposed to work). 
> >>>>>>>>> The man-pages are supposed to be for the day-to-day usage when 
> >>>>>>>>> someone wants to quickly look up command-line options. The 
> >>>>>>>>> doxygen is for function-level documentation for 
> >>>>>>>>> developers-only.  The tutorial is for newbie-developers, and is 
> >>>>>>>>> a bit dated. Finally, the LSDs are in-depth protocol 
> >>>>>>>>> descriptions for those wanting to do interoperable 
> >>>>>>>>> (re)implementations.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I hope that answers your questions and look forward to you 
> >>>>>>>>> improving the documentation!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Happy hacking!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Christian
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/20/22 02:21, Willow Liquorice wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I've got some free time on my hands now, and I gave some 
> >>>>>>>>>> thought to improving the readability of the HTML documentation 
> >>>>>>>>>> on the website (which is what the average prospective GNUnet 
> >>>>>>>>>> dev is going to look at). Read the Docs and friends set the 
> >>>>>>>>>> standard in this regard. Having the contents in a sidebar for 
> >>>>>>>>>> easy access (regardless of your location) would be far more 
> >>>>>>>>>> convenient than what's currently available.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I understand that TeXinfo's HTML generation is a bit 
> >>>>>>>>>> simplistic in the name of compatibility, which, while not a 
> >>>>>>>>>> bad thing, results in a subpar reading experience for the 
> >>>>>>>>>> average dev who will, in all likelihood, be reading the docs 
> >>>>>>>>>> on a very capable modern browser.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> While thinking about how to improve things with TeXinfo, it 
> >>>>>>>>>> occurred to me that, instead of trying to emulate the 
> >>>>>>>>>> experience of using Read the Docs, one could just use Read the 
> >>>>>>>>>> Docs! It's Free Software, after all. I haven't looked into it 
> >>>>>>>>>> too deeply, but if the .texi sources are converted to the 
> >>>>>>>>>> reStructuredText that it accepts, a migration (or use of a 
> >>>>>>>>>> similar platform) might be worth considering. What do the 
> >>>>>>>>>> people here think?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If I'm going to dedicate time to restructuring GNUnet's docs, 
> >>>>>>>>>> I need to know where it all is. I've found four strands of 
> >>>>>>>>>> docs in the repository (Handbook, Tutorial, Doxygen, and man 
> >>>>>>>>>> pages), could someone give me a run-down of the state they're 
> >>>>>>>>>> in, how they relate to one another, and what they're supposed 
> >>>>>>>>>> to be for? Is that everything?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>      Willow
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 01/03/2022 22:52, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Spam killed this. We already constantly have to delete 'bug 
> >>>>>>>>>>> reports'
> >>>>>>>>>>> from the Web that were submitted as link spam. A wiki will drain
> >>>>>>>>>>> resources to keep the spammers out, and at the same time 
> >>>>>>>>>>> experience says
> >>>>>>>>>>> the contributions will be low quality (it has been tried).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If someone really is capable and invests time into 
> >>>>>>>>>>> contributing to
> >>>>>>>>>>> documentation, they can pick up Git and send patches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/22 11:12 PM, madmurphy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if this will be a popular proposal, but I 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> really believe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that setting up a self-hosted Wiki could be a very good 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> choice. No
> >>>>>>>>>>>> complicate git clone, no complaints, just read/edit what you 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> need, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> distributed responsibilities about its design and direction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My two cents
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature