[Development] RFC: The Future of QDoc

BRM bm_witness at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 9 22:44:40 CET 2012

> From: "casper.vandonderen at nokia.com" <casper.vandonderen at nokia.com>

>Just to add what I think to Marius' comments:
>1. Doxygen would need some extra features, the major one being QML, but also being able to use index files to easily link for instance the Creator docs to the Qt docs.

Why would Doxygen need QML itself? Or do you mean it would need to be able to process the QML/JavaScript files to get additional documentation?

>2. Even if we would use Doxygen we would still need a fork before a release, I do not think we can line up releases of Doxygen with releases of Qt.
> And having a Doxygen version number like also doesn't look too great.

I can understand bundling a version of Doxygen with Qt in the release - like many projects do for their dependencies in case those things are not on the platform people are building on. E.g. Subversion bundles libneon.
However, I see no issue with saying that Doxygen version x.y.z is required to support documentation. So why would we need to _fork_ it as opposed to simply bundling a version that is known to work?

Just curious,


More information about the Development mailing list