Boost Docs :
Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-28 08:25:38
On 28/09/11 13:24, Daniel James wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 13:04, Mateusz Loskot<mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 27/09/11 00:46, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> Would it be valid to discuss Sphinx for Boost?
>> Reconsidering my thoughts on that and I've come to conclusion
>> that a strict unification of writing documentation across all the
>> libraries in the Boost collection would be impossible and probably
>> impractical. It's more a wishful thinking of mine.
>> I'm also lacking of better idea(s) myself.
>> I have to fight the complexity of documentation workflow
>> where I suffer of it myself, it is in Boost.Geometry.
> Well, if you can demonstrate how well a solution works, it could see
> more uptake.
> For sphinx, a good start might be to convert the existing
> docutils based documentation to sphinx, if possible.
What you mean as docutils?
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org