Why don't we set up an official wiki for GCC documentation?

[Matt Austern]

On Sep 9, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:

>
> On Sep 9, 2004, at 1:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>> It is for gcc developers, and those learning to develop in gcc, so 
>>> that they
>>> can understand the internals, the status of things, etc, in a 
>>> collaborative
>>> environment.
>>
>> And it seems to work reasonably well for that sort of thing.  I just 
>> don't
>> think the original poster's
>>
>>> The documentation of GCC is a heavily disccussed issue here. I
>>> strongly feel wiki would be a solution for it.
>>
>> bears much relation to how it is useful - the problems with the main
>> documentation (manuals and comments) are not something wiki will help
>> address, those with projects lists might be though the right relation
>> between projects listed in wiki and listed as bugs in Bugzilla needs
>> experimentation.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think wiki is a good solution for our 
> documentation right now. Our documentation is mostly in .texi, which 
> isn't hard to modify at all.

Well, actually our documentation (meaning documentation of compiler 
internals) is mostly in source comments, messages on this list, and 
people's heads.  It would be nice if we had a set of .texi design 
documents that walked through compiler internals, but we don't.

			--Matt