On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:42:28 +0200 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > As we all know the barebox documentation sucks. We @Pengutronix will > have our internal techweek next month. One of the goals will be to > improve the documentation situation for barebox. > > What are your opinions in which form the documentation should be? > > We currently have plain text files under Documentation/, a wiki on > http://wiki.barebox.org/doku.php and doxygen. None of the documentation > sets is complete and all are outdated. > > Some pros and cons of the existing approaches are: > > Plain text files > + Easy to write > + no extra step to generate docs, wysiwyg ;) > - no links > - no pictures > > Wiki > - not contained in the repository, so may be out of sync http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitit_%28software%29 ? > + links > + nice markup language > > doxygen > + contained in the repository > + easy html doc generation > + links > - extra step to generate the docs - not trivail board documentation adding (e.g. there is Documentation/boards.dox, and there is arch/arm/mach-omap/arch-omap.dox too) -- Best regards, Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox