Timeline for How should I approach documentation generation for my FOSS library? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2016 at 16:21 | comment | added | user22815 | Your edits improved the question, but I think it is still a bit broad and perhaps opinion-based. Maybe you could focus it a bit more? There is some good advice here. | |
| Nov 17, 2016 at 18:44 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 28, 2016 at 18:40 | |||||
| Nov 17, 2016 at 18:37 | comment | added | RubberDuck | If I was you, I'd use doxygen and this tool to generate markdown for your github project's wiki. You could easily automate the whole process because a github wiki is just a git repository of markdown files. | |
| Nov 17, 2016 at 18:21 | comment | added | einpoklum | @amon: Thanks for the compliment. I've removed the tool recommendation aspect (I hope), and I think some of the question stands anyway. | |
| Nov 17, 2016 at 18:18 | history | edited | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 330 characters in body
|
| Nov 17, 2016 at 18:07 | history | closed |
gnat amon Greg Burghardt Robert Harvey dan04 |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 17, 2016 at 16:18 | comment | added | amon | Sorry, we don't do tool recommendations here. But its great that you're looking into better reference docs for your project! Throughout my programming experience, the lack of detailed references has often meant that I couldn't really make proper use of a library without looking at the implementation and taking a guess which behaviour is part of the contract and will be supported across versions. If you find that Sphinx works fine for you, that's great, though it's certainly an unusual choice when compared to the more common Doxygen. | |
| Nov 17, 2016 at 16:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 17, 2016 at 18:12 | |||||
| Nov 17, 2016 at 15:46 | history | asked | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |