Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 35213: /trunk/docbook/wsdg_src/ /trunk/docbook/wsdg_src/: WSDG_chapter_build_intro.xml WSDG_preface.xml

[Bill Meier <wmeier () newsguy com>]

On 12/18/2010 11:03 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> On 12/18/2010 06:13 AM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:53:09PM -0500, Bill Meier wrote:
> > > It seemed like a good idea to me.  I find trying to read
> > > README.developer rather tedious, altho I do agree that a plain text file
> > > can be grep'ed and etc.
> > >
> > > If there's feeling that README.developer should be left as is, then I
> > > can certainly revert the changes.
> >
> > If someone is willing and able to create a readable ascii version from the
> > docbook (as proposed in another mail to this thread), then docbook
> > integration would be my preferred solution as it provides one source where
> > to search for programming information. Right now I use wsdg rarely because
> > of its format.
>
> +1.
>
> I never use the wsdg.  I used it once or twice for the
> how-to-set-up-a-win32-build instructions and I looked at it a couple of
> times after that when reviewing patches against it.
>
> I use README.developer on a fairly regular basis.
>
> :e doc/R<tab>dev<tab><enter>/whatever-I'm-looking-for
>
> (optionally followed by a bunch of "n"s) gets me what I want pretty
> quickly.  I can even then cut-n-paste a sample function call (for
> example) into whatever file I'm editing, all without touching the mouse.
>
> I wouldn't mind too much if the text-only version was generated, though
> it might make it slightly less likely that I'd edit it.


OK: Obviously I jumped the gun on this.  :)

(In fact, if I really think about my own habits, I tend to use 
README.developer  more than the WSDG).

So:

1. For now, I'll revert the README.developer changes (and also
    the WSDG changes I made to include the style guide).

2. I'll look into "readable ascii version from the docbook".
    My first simple trials using lynx to do html to text for
    the StyleGuide section:
      The text appeared more or less OK but I wasn't really thrilled
      with the way the code fragments appeared.

3. In any case, I'm realizing that the deeper issue seems to be
    about good ways to document Wireshark for the developer.

    Obviously that can be an extensive discussion; It's certainly
    a good discussion to have, but it's"bigger than a breadbox".

    To be perfectly honest, in general my interests and focus
    are more on the Wireshark software itself.

Bill
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe