On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Brad Jorsch
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Antoine Musso
Since we introduced hooks in MediaWiki, the documentation has been
maintained in a flat file /docs/hooks.txt . Over the week-end I have
converted the content of that file to let Doxygen recognize it.
The patchset is:
The result is pretty. But personally I'll probably continue to just
look in hooks.txt if I need the info in there, and the markup in the
(now-misnamed) file is rather ugly. Not that the existing file isn't
also ugly, just less so.
I'm with Brad. Considering we document this in the tree and on
, I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of having it done
via Doxygen is.
I've never understood why we have some subsection of documentation stuck in
the tree. It makes no sense. If we want to include docs with the software
shouldn't we just dump tagged docs from mediawiki.org
into the tree, per
release? Right now we have docs in two places to keep up to date and
neither place is kept very well documented.