The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
From: sam kleinman <s...@tychoish.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:31:01 -0400
Local: Wed, May 2 2012 9:31 am
Subject: Re: hacker news discussion -> manual updates
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:25:30AM -0700, Evan Martin wrote:
No such thing. Or at least, no such thing as long as the docs are in
> I've considered splitting the manual into "how to use ninja from the > perspective of someone who doesn't want to write a build system" > (which would include command-line flags and your above description) > and then a separate "how to write ninja inputs" (which would include > all the syntax etc.) but the two end up overlapping a bit and there > are too much docs already. :) state where they make use/understanding/difficult. Would it make sense to turn the current docs into three parts (files?):
- Reference: short descriptions of all of the nobs and buttons and their
- The bulk of the current documentation ("how to use ninja from the
- Documents to support people who want to use ninja, how to write ninja
> > Does anyone have a public/open source project that uses gyp other than
Well blast!
> > Chromium that might provide a good example? > I don't think there are any. :)
> Node.js uses gyp (because v8 does), but I think they currently rely on
Would working toward getting node into a place where it uses gyp in a
> features specific to gyp's Makefile output. I bet it wouldn't be too > hard to make work under Ninja but I also wonder if it would benefit > them too much. make/ninja compatible way, be incredibly difficult? And useful as another test bed? For ninja and/or gyp? Cheers,
--
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||||
