Re: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> "Greg J. Badros" wrote:
> > 
> > I'm setting up a web page to manage this stuff.  
> 
> Good plan.
>
> > I'm all for DocBook instead, and if you write new stuff, then by all
> > means use it.  It won't be that hard to convert the TeXinfo stuff to
> > docbook later, and it sounds like we'll be able to convert from DocBook
> > to TeXInfo before too long (and we might even be able to now).
>  
> It sounds like there is a tool to do it. Given this, my preference is for
> DocBook.

Good, I'm glad we agree!

> > I'm planning on using Scwm style in-file markup and extracting it:
> > 
> > /** CONCEPT: Foo
> >    info about concept foo using <emph>docbook</emph> markup
> >   */
> > 
> > Please use this format for now; we can change later if there's a good
> > enough reason to.
> > 
> 
> Good. How about variables, hooks, etc?

These should be done w/ macros like we do in Scwm.  I'll get to them
sooner or later, but they are less of an issue in the core than they are 
in applications (that doesn't mean the macros shouldn't be in the core,
of course, but just that I can delay that for a bit).

> Also, it's been pointed out to me that for any significant documentation
> contributions (more than 10 lines or so - but copying from other sources
> probably does not count) I should have the contributor sign papers before
> checking the work in. So anyone who wants to contribute and does not
> have papers on file with the FSF, please email me and I'll send you the
> proper forms ASAP. Don't worry about having the processing complete
> before starting work, we will track what's been done and check stuff
> in as soon as the FSF has finished it's processing.

Greg