Gideon doctreeview stuff

Victor Röder victor_roeder at
Wed Nov 13 13:11:02 UTC 2002


>This actually does not sound like a very good suggestion.
>If you are saying that we should not be distributing a copy of that 
>documentation, that might sound somewhat fine. But if you want to remove the 
>code for that, it doesn't sound reasonable.
I think removing code was not under discussion :-).

>>I would like to propose the following change to gideon:
>>Remove from doc/doctreeview the STL, LIBC, and KDE2BOOK stuff.  This
>>documentation is not necessary for many people.
>>Instead, let's put this information, or links to it, at a repository, like
>>the kdevelop web site.  If a user wants a local copy of this documentation,
>>they are more than welcome to download a tar file, install it themselves,
>>and change the directory pointers to that location.
>>Would something like this suffice?
Yes, I think that's a good idea. It makes the CVS repository smaller and 
doesn't eliminate the opportunity to read/download the needed 
documentation though.
I think Quanta does it the same way with the HTML, PHP, etc...  docs.


More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list