From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, David Bremner <david@tethera.net>,
	notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] library reference man page
In-Reply-To: <87r49xshd4.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <cover.1385826040.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<87haat4pws.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87r49xshd4.fsf@nikula.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17+13~gdfcf116 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
	(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:15:55 +0200
Message-ID: <m261q3pz38.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list

On Sat, Nov 30 2013, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
>> Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes:
>>>
>>>  devel/doxygen.cfg | 1890 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  lib/notmuch.h     |  436 ++++++++----
>>
>> A 2K line config file is kindof gross, but other than that, I think the
>> idea has merit. Do we really need that much configuration info?
>
> The config file is basically a template generated with 'doxygen -g' and
> adjusted to our needs. It could be significantly reduced by dropping
> comments, defaults, and unused settings. Maybe that would be the right
> thing to do, even if the comments and defaults that are set explicitly
> serve as documentation.
>
>> Perhaps a quibble, but at least for me the summary part of the resulting
>> manpage is almost unreadable because of the amount of underlining.
>
> Agreed, it's not optimal. I was hoping someone more experienced with
> doxygen would fix that after I shared this initial work. ;)

$ doxygen -g -s
...
$ wc Doxyfile
  305   861 10677 Doxyfile

;)

Maybe keeping the defaults is better than hassle with just the changed
options ?


> BR,
> Jani.

Tomi