[cairo] [PATCH] finalizing move to no-tmpl flavour of gtk-doc

[Bryce Harrington]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:52:08PM +0200, Rafał Mużyło wrote:
> Could I get a bit more input on bug 82741 ?
> 
> While there's an important problem with this patch wrt. breaking
> check-doc-syntax script, there are hints noone has been using that
> script in awhile. Other than that, the patch should be fine - it's
> basically just a cleanup, as the important parts went into the repo a
> few years ago.

Well, there's many scripts in Cairo that go unused for long periods, but
I think that's not the best reason to break them, at least not
intentionally...

This patch appears to be doing several distinct cleanups.

Deleting </para> from cairo-version.c - obviously good.

  * Compile-time
  * ------------
- * CAIRO_VERSION_STRING    Human-readable
- * CAIRO_VERSION           Encoded, suitable for comparison
+ * #CAIRO_VERSION_STRING    Human-readable
+ * #CAIRO_VERSION           Encoded, suitable for comparison

I don't follow this bit; are the hashes just for doc markup?

Dropping of tmpl - I'm not opposed to this but I'm not familiar with
tmpl, can you give me background as to why it should be removed, and
what the ramification is?  Is this what breaks check-doc-syntax?

Removing references to cairo_stroke_to_path, I see the function is in
cairo.c but #if 0'd out, commented "XXX: NYI".  While removing it from
the documentation is certainly worthwhile if it'll never be implemented,
let me ask the question - maybe we should implement it?

Poking around I found that years ago Jeff Muizelaar and Andrea Canciani
came up with a draft implementation:

  http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ranma42/cairo/?h=wip/stroke-to-path

Would anyone like to bring that up to date and re-propose the feature?

 
> I hoped to get it into this release, but it seems patches not on the
> list get about as much attention as in ALSA bug tracking system
> :sigh:...

With the limited patch review manpower we got, the "Squeaky wheels get
the grease" rule is gonna apply.

If you can re-roll the patch excluding whatever broke the doc check
script, I'll be glad to apply it.
 
Bryce