From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48891) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cWoE4-0000PO-IN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:52:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cWoE1-0008TO-EE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:52:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43584) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cWoE1-0008TK-8T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:52:45 -0500 References: <8ae107ad-0f3f-46ef-e734-2f88b14bad9a@redhat.com> <265EAA01-0C75-45D5-A55D-481DAC288AE5@gmail.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:52:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <265EAA01-0C75-45D5-A55D-481DAC288AE5@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu-devel] Poll on QEMU documentation project List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: G 3 Cc: qemu-devel qemu-devel On 26/01/2017 18:40, G 3 wrote: >=20 > On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >=20 >> >> >> On 26/01/2017 18:28, G 3 wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:00 PM, qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> as you may know I've been collecting some ideas about documentation = for >>>> QEMU at http://wiki.qemu-project.org/Features/Documentation. >>>> >>>> I've now prepared a poll to understand how familiars developers are >>>> with >>>> various documentation tools. I've CCed people with most commits to >>>> QEMU >>>> documentation, or with whom I have discussed about this before, but >>>> everybody's opinion is of course welcome! >>>> >>>> The poll is hosted with Google Forms and you can fill it in at >>>> https://goo.gl/Yfxj1M. If you hate Google Forms, contact me offlist >>>> and >>>> I'll send you the questions by email (and remind you when I need >>>> someone >>>> to review my patches). >>>> >>>> Paolo >>>> >>>> >>>> tl;dr: poll is at https://goo.gl/Yfxj1M >>> >>> >>> For this question: >>> What's your opinion on the maintainability of the following >>> documentation formats? >>> >>> Is it from 1(least maintainable) to 5 (most maintainable)? >>> >>> The survey looks good. I will take it. >> >> Yes, all of them are 1=3Dbad 5=3Dgood. >=20 > Could we add HTML to the list of documentation formats? Since you have mentioned that in the comments and someone else mentioned AsciiDoc, they weren't included because: - HTML is mostly a destination format. With the listed formats it is possible to produce a variety of outputs (mostly HTML itself and PDF; secondarily text or ePub or others). - AsciiDoc was considered by the Linux kernel folks but they complained about the tools. Paolo