[Qgis-developer] Managing a future 2.18 or 3.0 documentation?

[Richard Duivenvoorde]

On 28-07-16 01:33, DelazJ wrote:

>     talk about 2.16? :) Let's focus to 2.18/3.0.
> 
> I mentioned 2.16 just because it's what we are working on now. And the
> purpose of this discussion is : And then? What do we do after 2.16
> issues are all fixed?
> And actually, as Andreas said earlier, when 2.18 is released and if it's
> the last 2.x version, then I think it's more coherent to have a 2.18 doc
> than a 2.16 doc.
> If there is a need of a 2.x doc after 2.14 LTR, I think it should be for
> the last release in 2.x. That means being able to identify 2.x commits
> from 3.x ones.
> 
>     Spliting ticket in two milestone needs some work for the next 3-4
>     monthes, I
> 
> If we do not publish another 2.x doc, sure I'd have wasted my time (not
> so much though). And afaics, it'd be the only harm. But what if 3.0
> takes too long and that 2.16 issues are meanwhile all documented?
> Most of 2.18 features are likely commited in 3.0 meaning that
> documenting those features is not a waste of time. All is done in a
> single master (testing) branch so that work will benefit to a 3.x
> documentation.

Hi, well, writing(!) documentation for features which landed in 2.16 and
2.18 is never wrong :-) As they will be ported to 3.0 too, so will be
documented then for the 3.0 (or 3.2) LTR version of the docs ...

But IF we want to keep if possible to release a 2.1x version (I
hope/think we should make that a LTR too then) we cannot add stuff which
only lands in 3.0 branch (which hopefully will be the case too)...
But that is off course OK: we have enough to document from 2.16 and 2.18
(master_2) branches... if all those 2.16 and 2.18 issues (IF you label
them such) are closed, and there is nothing to do, we can decide what to
do next...?

Also on my wishlist (for 3.0) is to restructure docs, by (maybe) making
all text markdown (making it easier to write), and only the index pages
rst (because then we can make index pages, toc's etc ...)
We would loose the ability to do cross reference in texts, but... maybe
if we keep the docs as flat as possible, meaning just two layers dep:
- index (rst)
-    directory
-      text (markdown)
And do the text more like 'info cards' (having deep links to parts of
it), we can use those in QGIS itself too.
All this to make it possible/easier to show the images in github and
make it easier for people to write/fix/update documentation...

Ok with this?

Regards,

Richard