From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (dan.rpsys.net [93.97.175.187]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3AEE01482 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r5DBhfaP030585; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:43:42 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jRQ88GpvxSmw; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:43:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r5DBhbAN030580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:43:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1371123472.20823.50.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Bill Traynor Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:37:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Paul Eggleton , "Rifenbark, Scott M" , "webhob@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [Webhob] Web Hob documentation? X-BeenThere: webhob@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:38:26 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 07:23 -0400, Bill Traynor wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Barros Pena, Belen > wrote: > I am not even sure if need to produce Web Hob documentation > for the 1.5 > release, but I thought I'd bring it up just in case. Maybe > something > lightweight, like the Hob manual page on the website, might be > enough. > > Let me know what you think. > > Is Webhob to be a part of BitBake proper? I see that Webhob patches > are hitting the bitbake-devel list. If the answer is yes, that Webhob > is to be a part of BitBake and it's source code live within the > BitBake source tree, then my feeling is that it's documentation should > be part of the BitBake manual. I think the answer is "it depends". I think for 1.5 we will need some basic information about the fact the UI exists, how to start it, what the capabilities are, the limitations and some indication of future plans (high level). This would probably be fine in the YP manuals and/or on the wiki. If we do add any developer oriented docs such as how to extend/customise it, those would probably be best in the bitbake manual. Cheers, Richard