[SciPy-User] Up-to-date SciPy/NumPy docs

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM, David Goldsmith
<d.l.goldsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is, the doc is *not* stable: the NumPy doc is quasi-stable
> (there remain 59 "documents" - docstrings, user guide pages, reference
> pages, and tutorial pages - in "Being written" status, and 81 in "Needs
> editing" status, 19 of which are new since the end of April, i.e., NumPy
> continues to be moving target), and the SciPy doc is in a highly
> "non-uniform" state, both with respect to quantity and quality, which is
> putting it euphemistically IMHO: frankly, if you distribute the SciPy doc
> now as it is, you're doing us a better service by telling people that it
> *isn't* stable, because saying it *is* in its present state, well, that's
> what would make us look unprofessional (again, IMO).  More to the point, the
> SciPy doc is presently the focus of an ostensibly community-wide effort to
> improve it, so, again ostensibly, presently it is anything but "stable."
>
> There's a lot of work to be done, but, under the philosophy that some doc is
> better than no doc at all, the present, dynamic state hasn't stopped us from
> releasing it "as is" in the past; indeed, in the past, I believe this has
> been the main source of doc improvement: a user posts a doc deficiency to
> the list, and that's when it's been taken care of - the "itch-scratching"
> approach.  I *think* we all wish that the doc could be completed yesterday,
> but the fact of the matter is, until the community steps up and decides that
> writing good, clear and complete doc for the stuff that's already there is
> *at least* as important as increasing the code base, the state of the doc
> will forever be "unstable."

Even if it is permanent work in progress, the current scipy chm is
dated 3/8/2009 !

This might correspond to the code of  scipy 0.7.x but misses all doc
improvements.
I downloaded this chm file already several times hoping for an updated
version, only to see it's still the same.

Last time I tried, it was relatively easy to build with a .bat file on Windows.
What's the workflow to keep the chm updated?

For multiversion docs, we might still have incomplete number of
"changed" and "added" notes to the docstrings.

Josef

>
> DG
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Pierre Raybaut <pierre.raybaut at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was planning to update Python(x,y) NumPy and SciPy plugins up to
>> (resp.) v1.4.1 and v0.7.2 for a long time now but I was waiting for
>> the documentation to be updated as well. But when I'm going to SciPy
>> documentation website, there are either still outdated versions of
>> NumPy and Scipy documentation available for download.
>>
>> More precisely, I have the choice to download either outdated .chm
>> (the most interesting format for Windows) or .pdf documentations, or
>> "too recent" html versions (drafts).
>>
>> Wouldn't be more logical to propose a stable version of these
>> documentations along with current stable releases?
>> I'm tired to deliver draft versions with Python(x,y), it simply seems
>> unprofessional...
>>
>> In other words, I would really appreciate .chm docs to be updated to
>> the latest stable releases of NumPy and SciPy. I'm sure that all
>> Windows scientific Python users will appreciate as well!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pierre
>> _______________________________________________
>> SciPy-User mailing list
>> SciPy-User at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
>
>
>
> --
> Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty
> set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero.
>
> Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her
> lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide.  (As interpreted
> by Robert Graves)
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-User mailing list
> SciPy-User at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
>
>