Message ID | 1417573776-4829-2-git-send-email-spitzak@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | Rejected |
Headers | show |
diff --git a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am index 83622af..fe6f300 100644 --- a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am +++ b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ man/man3/wl_display.3: $(scanned_src_files_client) $(scanned_src_files_server) echo "GENERATE_MAN=YES"; \ echo "MAN_OUTPUT=man"; \ echo "JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF=NO"; \ + echo "WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED=NO"; \ echo "INPUT= $^"; \ ) | doxygen -
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 06:29:34PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: > These warnings are a duplicate of the first set > --- > doc/doxygen/Makefile.am | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am > index 83622af..fe6f300 100644 > --- a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am > +++ b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ man/man3/wl_display.3: $(scanned_src_files_client) $(scanned_src_files_server) > echo "GENERATE_MAN=YES"; \ > echo "MAN_OUTPUT=man"; \ > echo "JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF=NO"; \ > + echo "WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED=NO"; \ > echo "INPUT= $^"; \ > ) | doxygen - wouldn't it be better to document all bits rather than silencing the warnings? Cheers, Peter
On 12/02/2014 07:47 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 06:29:34PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: >> These warnings are a duplicate of the first set >> --- >> doc/doxygen/Makefile.am | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am >> index 83622af..fe6f300 100644 >> --- a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am >> +++ b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am >> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ man/man3/wl_display.3: $(scanned_src_files_client) $(scanned_src_files_server) >> echo "GENERATE_MAN=YES"; \ >> echo "MAN_OUTPUT=man"; \ >> echo "JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF=NO"; \ >> + echo "WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED=NO"; \ >> echo "INPUT= $^"; \ >> ) | doxygen - > > wouldn't it be better to document all bits rather than silencing the > warnings? Yes it would, but I thought it would be nicer to not print the warnings twice.
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27:54PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: > > > On 12/02/2014 07:47 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 06:29:34PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: > >>These warnings are a duplicate of the first set > >>--- > >> doc/doxygen/Makefile.am | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >>diff --git a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am > >>index 83622af..fe6f300 100644 > >>--- a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am > >>+++ b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am > >>@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ man/man3/wl_display.3: $(scanned_src_files_client) $(scanned_src_files_server) > >> echo "GENERATE_MAN=YES"; \ > >> echo "MAN_OUTPUT=man"; \ > >> echo "JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF=NO"; \ > >>+ echo "WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED=NO"; \ > >> echo "INPUT= $^"; \ > >> ) | doxygen - > > > >wouldn't it be better to document all bits rather than silencing the > >warnings? > > Yes it would, but I thought it would be nicer to not print the warnings > twice. if it motivates anyone to fix it quicker then I'm all for printing it twice ;)
Yea, ignore this patch. I think I can get Doxygen to produce both outputs in one pass, which will be faster and only produce one set of warnings. On 12/03/2014 01:42 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:27:54PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: >> >> >> On 12/02/2014 07:47 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 06:29:34PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: >>>> These warnings are a duplicate of the first set >>>> --- >>>> doc/doxygen/Makefile.am | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am >>>> index 83622af..fe6f300 100644 >>>> --- a/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am >>>> +++ b/doc/doxygen/Makefile.am >>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ man/man3/wl_display.3: $(scanned_src_files_client) $(scanned_src_files_server) >>>> echo "GENERATE_MAN=YES"; \ >>>> echo "MAN_OUTPUT=man"; \ >>>> echo "JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF=NO"; \ >>>> + echo "WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED=NO"; \ >>>> echo "INPUT= $^"; \ >>>> ) | doxygen - >>> >>> wouldn't it be better to document all bits rather than silencing the >>> warnings? >> >> Yes it would, but I thought it would be nicer to not print the warnings >> twice. > > if it motivates anyone to fix it quicker then I'm all for printing it > twice ;) >