[Libusbx-devel] doxygen and rebranding update

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Pete Batard <pete at akeo.ie> wrote:
> I've just updated the main wiki page, these would be good to get
> answered there. If you want to go for it, please do so.

Last time I tried to edit the Wiki page, I can not. I will try again.

>> BTW, README should add Ludovic's name.
>> http://libusbx.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=libusbx/libusbx;a=blob;f=README;hb=HEAD
>
> Will fix that, unless Ludovic doesn't want to see his e-mail be made
> readily available in the README. The implication of having your name and
> e-mail in the README is that, while not encouraged, it is possible that
> people will try to contact you for support or other requests if they
> feel like it.

Yes that is true. My standard answer for technical support questions
is "please go to the mailing list" and I give him the link for the
project web page and mailing list information.

>> The Doxygen file is not only API documentation, but also some other
>> stuff.
>
> As explained above, while it most certainly can be used for more than
> just APIs, I disagree with doing so, as I only anticipate duplicate and
> syncproblems if we do.

No

>> http://libusb.sourceforge.net/api-1.0/
>> libusb-1.0 API Reference is rather a misnomer and I would call our
>> libusbx doxygen documentation "libusbx documentation".
>
> Well, the issue is that when we release 2.0, which is expected to have
> an incompatible API, we will need to have 2 concurrent versions of our
> APIs up for consultation. For instance one will (hopefully) use poll
> abstraction while the other will use the old poll.
>
> Doxygen will be no help in trying to provide both at once.
>
>> I think Travis does a good job for the libusbK Doxygen and libusbx
>> can learn something from that.
>> http://libusbk.sourceforge.net/UsbK3/index.html
>
> Doubt we'll have much time to improve on simply trying to provide the
> basics (wiki, doxygen portal page, versioning, hopefully Windows binary
> snapshots) between now and 2012.04.16.
>
> Doesn't mean that we shouldn't learn from what Travis did, but I'd like
> to use this opportunity to just remind everybody of being very mindful
> of our timeline, especially if requesting tasks to be performed that you
> are not planning to do yourself, as all of these add up and time is
> usually in much shorter supply than one may think.
>
> This being said, if anybody wants to send in patches to improve the
> sources for doxygen or other stuff, feel free to do so. But as far as
> I'm concerned, I'm not planning to spend more time on doxygen than what
> I have done today - realistically, I just won't have time for that.
>

No problem. We can leave Doxygen as it is for 1.0.x. I am not
saying the current Doxygen is bad -- on contrary, it is excellent.
Daniel Drake did a superb job for libusb.

-- 
Xiaofan