Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?
Hi,
* Brendan Cully [07-02-22 09:30:33 -0800] wrote:
So, I'd like to hear once again which patches everyone would
like to see in 1.6 (and which patches people object to).
I think we should rethink or at least put lots of manpower into
documentation prior to 1.6 since I think 1.6 will (again) be out several
years before 1.8. At least people seem to stick with stable mutt
releases for quite some time.
The manual is in large parts just a reference only so I think we should
re-organize its sections and rewrite some parts from scratch (I know
that talk is cheap and somebody has to do it, but unless there's
consensus on the problem here, I'm not willing to put any work into it).
WIth Brendan switching to hg prior to 1.6, hacking on a rewrite in a
separate branch with several developers would be easy and efficient I
hope.
Also, I think the current way of creating it is not very optimal since I
(still) consider DocBook a format which is to be generated by machines,
not written by humans (please no flamewar on that one! :)
Just a very stupid idea: why not play with asciidoc a little? It should
do all what we want, we could finally simplify makedoc a lot and still
get all output we want. Plus: the manual would be much easier to hack
on, much smaller in size, etc. With some XSLT magic I think it could be
more or less easy to create an initial asciidoc-based document.
Ideas or comments?
bye, Rocco
--
:wq!