[MERGE] Doc changes

[James Blackwell]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:39:36PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2005, James Blackwell <jblack at merconline.com> wrote:
> > Martin,
> > 
> > I have a set of doc related code pages for you that is the combination of
> > work from myself and ndim. The work is kept at
> > http://mercury.linuxguru.net/~jblack/branches/bzr-help
> > 
> Sounds good.

> setup.py still refers to the old bzr_man.

Fixed. You can either take it now, or wait until I have the standalone
tests done.

>  
> >    There's no tests for this. I don't see a whole lot of point to it, but
> >    I'd be happy to pull unittest into the mix for the tools dir if you
> >    like.
> 
> I think it's always worth at least having some smoke tests.  (Meaning if
> you plug in a bit of hardware and turn it on, does it catch fire?)
> This is important for Python because there's no static compile/check phase.
> 
> So for these changes you might run generate_docs and make sure it does
> actually produce a manpage.  For bonus points, you could invoke man on
> the output and check it returns 0.

Happy to do so. I'm presuming you want a standalone test.


> At the moment the tutorial in the source tree is somewhat out of date
> with the one on the wiki.  We should have just one -- any opinions on
> which?

Hmm. I can see it two ways; a tutorial on the wiki gives people the
opportunity to see how bzr feels and gives the general community the
opportunity to participate while a tutorial with the code is right there
when the code is installed and is a little closer to changes being made. 

If we should only have one, I'd go with the tutorial being in the
codebase. I'm paying closer attention to the codebase itself these days,
so I'm happy to keep the tutorial up.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051212/d633c9a1/attachment.pgp