[Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

casper.vandonderen at nokia.com casper.vandonderen at nokia.com
Thu Apr 12 18:30:39 CEST 2012


>> While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above
>> are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly.
>>
>> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
>> that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be
>> able to see relations between some major classes, like QObject ->
>> QWidget. You'd only be able to see QWidget -> QObject. These kinds of
>> links are not something that does not happen. The QObject docs are a
>> good example of that, as they actually reference QWidget. Personally, I
>> also regulary use the Inherited by list. I would hate to see that go.
>>
>> I don't have a solution ready though.
>>
>
>
> I also don't like it. What is the benefit of doing that? what went wrong with
> make docs?

There are 2 main problems with the current system:
1. Nobody was running "make docs" on their local machines (and verifying the output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last December. Having the documentation modularized will at some point (hopefully soon) allow us to put documentation generation in the CI system. This would allow us to catch patches causing qdoc errors.
2. It was/is completely unclear how the system works, there hasn't been any QML documentation at http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/5.0/ for multiple weeks now (I believe 4, maybe more).

> Also, you seem to use the "Module" terminology to refer to library (QtCore,
> QtGui, ...) within qtbase.  But some other people may refer to "Module" for
> the repositoies (qtbase, qtdeclarative, qtscript, ...).
> This is a bit confusing, please clarify.

The term module in documentation equals library. There is no concept of repositories for the documentation. I went for what we use in qdoc (\module and \qmlmodule), sorry if that was unclear.


Casper


More information about the Development mailing list