Hi Doug: > In principle, versioned documentation is a good idea. I wonder if we can > support that in our process. Re-thinking ... as most users and potential users want to be with the latest version I'm thinking forget versioning, past is past and users should be able to figure out on their own if a newer feature then they have is used in an example. I'm willing to try and help, the problem is I'm pushing 80 and don't know how long I'll be able to help. I've been using Unix/Linux since the '80s so I have skills there that might help in organizing things. I downloaded the complete wiki and then used iceweasel to run the local html and all seemed complete. There are, even at a quick look, some redundancies. The html itself is, unfortunately, the usual overly complex structure generated by "auto" programs. > good, since the current user manual is cluttered with references to > obsolete features, and "this only works in version X" annotations. If the > pace of innovation picks up, or as time goes on, the clutter gets worse. The people who have contributed to date have done a good job but, as you note the pace has picked up and likely will at an increased pace for some time. It might be simpler to list available and obsolete features in tabular form. If you think I can be helpful give me a shout, I've done dirty work many times in my life.<smile> Jack

yeah, I'm pushing 70 myself. Been using unix/bsd since the early 80's. linux since like 92. I am willing to help in any way possible too. I only do ruby/python programming anymore. I haven't used C since early 90's. I like wiki's as they make documentation more collaboritive, but it can easily get "out of hand", and something that seems simple, like offline doc, and versioning with a wiki is much less easy. I wonder if there are other wiki's out there that would be better suited to what we want to do? jerry Jerry -- Extra Ham Operator: K7AZJ Registered Linux User: 275424 Raspberry Pi and Arduino developer *The most exciting phrase to hear in science - the one that heralds new discoveries - is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...".*- Isaac. Asimov *I* *f you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime. *- Anonymous *If writing good code requires very little comments, then writing really excellent code requires no comments at all!*- Ken Thompson On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:47 PM, <jart3@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Doug: > > > In principle, versioned documentation is a good idea. I wonder if we can > > support that in our process. > > Re-thinking ... as most users and potential users want to be with the > latest version I'm thinking forget versioning, past is past and users > should > be able to figure out on their own if a newer feature then they have is > used in an example. > > I'm willing to try and help, the problem is I'm pushing 80 and don't know > how long I'll be able to help. I've been using Unix/Linux since the '80s > so I have skills there that might help in organizing things. I downloaded > the complete wiki and then used iceweasel to run the local html and all > seemed complete. There are, even at a quick look, some redundancies. The > html itself is, unfortunately, the usual overly complex structure generated > by "auto" programs. > > > good, since the current user manual is cluttered with references to > > obsolete features, and "this only works in version X" annotations. If the > > pace of innovation picks up, or as time goes on, the clutter gets worse. > > The people who have contributed to date have done a good job but, as you > note the pace has picked up and likely will at an increased pace for some > time. It might be simpler to list available and obsolete features in > tabular form. If you think I can be helpful give me a shout, I've done > dirty work many times in my life.<smile> > > Jack > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >