On 08/17/2013 12:23 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:Can we make all docstrings self-consistent while we're touching
> Hey peeps,
> After talking with Matt at some length about the yt documentation, we
> thought it might be a good idea to have a documentation sprint in a few
> months when we've moved over to yt 3.0 as the focus of our development.
> The docs in general are good, but there are some gaps here and there with
> some functionality not present in the documentation. I'm not proposing an
> entire (or even partial) rewrite of the docs, as I think that would be
> counterproductive. I'm simply thinking we could fill in the holes to make
> sure all of the cool stuff in yt is written up so people know how to use it.
> Now, I know doc writing is not often fun, but I think this could be really
> beneficial to our user base, and actually cut down on the amount of time we
> have to respond to new users on the mailing list and irc (as well as making
> it easier for people to use yt).
> What I'm asking from you is if you encounter something that you don't think
> is well documented in the formal docs (not simply the docstrings), could
> you take a moment to create a bitbucket issue about it? You don't even
> have to fix it then, just note it, so we know where to work when we do the
> sprint in a few months.
documentation throughout the whole project? I know that involves code
duplication in many cases but from my POV it has two advantages: being
copy'n'pasteable and it would greatly increase the code coverage in tests.
yt-dev mailing list