On 08/17/2013 12:23 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:
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.
Can we make all docstrings self-consistent while we're touching 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.