* Barry Warsaw: " Re: Packaging of suds-jurko (was: suds)" (Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:00:34 -0400): > On Jul 02, 2014, at 04:16 PM, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > >> * I still have not taken over the original project's documentation > >> and that is something I'd really like to do so I can update it with all > >> the fixes/updates made to the library. If anyone has experience with > >> epydocs and the toolchain used to generate the docs in the original suds > >> project and is willing to assist, I can take a look at that this weekend. > > > >Sorry, no experience with epydocs on my side. > > My epydocs experience is *very* rusty. How hard would it be to covert the > docs to Sphinx-consumable reST? Clearly, that's the state of the art in > Python documentation these days. That was my initial thought, too. But then I supposed, that Jurko probably wanted to remain as near to the origin as possible in case his project would be re-merged. But at a second glance I think, that the migration of docs could also merged back as an improvement. Any thoughts, Jurko?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature