After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 676430 - documentation fixes
documentation fixes
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gdk-pixbuf
Classification: Platform
Component: general
2.24.x
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: gdk-pixbuf-maint
gdk-pixbuf-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-05-20 16:01 UTC by Rafał Mużyło
Modified: 2012-09-03 17:59 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
patch implementing descrided doc fixes (6.48 KB, patch)
2012-05-20 16:01 UTC, Rafał Mużyło
needs-work Details | Review
patch updated with @key (6.49 KB, patch)
2012-07-06 17:50 UTC, Rafał Mużyło
accepted-commit_now Details | Review

Description Rafał Mużyło 2012-05-20 16:01:23 UTC
Created attachment 214501 [details] [review]
patch implementing descrided doc fixes

It would seem, that back when gdk-pixbuf was pulled out of gtk+, it *accidentally* lost GdkPixbuf Xlib documentation.
This patch restores it and fixes a couple of typos.

A few questions, though:
- I know *very* little about gtk-doc, so I couldn't really tell what is the purpose of '<link linkend="GDK_PIXBUF_MODULE_FILE"><envar>GDK_PIXBUF_MODULE_FILE</envar>' in docs/reference/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders.xml, besides causing a gtk-doc warning
- as above, in quite a few in-source comments '&gdk-pixbuf;' construct is used; in in-tree xml sources, this expands to '<application>gdk-pixbuf</application>', but is not correctly expanded for in-source comments; in fact, in this patch I changed it in one place to simply 'gdk-pixbuf' , so that a proper link was generated; so, what form should it take in the other places ?
- before the split, there was a section referring to reference/gdk-pixbuf/porting-from-imlib.sgml, perhaps it should be restored too ?
Comment 1 Allison Karlitskaya (desrt) 2012-07-06 17:34:40 UTC
Review of attachment 214501 [details] [review]:

Thanks for the patch.  There are some comments below about gtk-doc syntax as well as a question.

::: contrib/gdk-pixbuf-xlib/gdk-pixbuf-xlibrgb.c
@@ -475,3 @@
 /**
  * xlib_rgb_set_verbose:
- * @verbose: %True to be verbose

We use %XXX to refer to constants like %TRUE and %FALSE.  In this case I guess it refers to the XLib constant %True...

::: docs/reference/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf.xml
@@ -135,3 @@
-    <title>Index of new symbols in 2.10</title>
-    <xi:include href="xml/api-index-2.10.xml"><xi:fallback /></xi:include>
-  </index>

Is there any reason you are removing these?

::: gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf-animation.c
@@ +548,3 @@
  * If this function returns %FALSE, there's no need to update the animation
  * display, assuming the display had been rendered prior to advancing;
+ * if %TRUE, you need to call gdk_pixbuf_animation_iter_get_pixbuf()

good catch.

::: gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf.c
@@ +765,3 @@
  * @value: a nul-terminated string.
  * 
+ * Attaches a key/value pair as an option to a #GdkPixbuf. If key already

should be @key to refer to a parameter
Comment 2 Rafał Mużyło 2012-07-06 17:46:28 UTC
The difference being that TRUE/FALSE are documented, True/False are not, just produce warnings.

As for removal, that's simple - no new symbols added to GdkPixBuf then - it's just a leftover from common gtk+/gdk-pixbuf docs.

The question about '<application>gdk-pixbuf</application>' stays open - I'm nearly sure my workaround isn't quite correct there.
Comment 3 Rafał Mużyło 2012-07-06 17:50:58 UTC
Created attachment 218197 [details] [review]
patch updated with @key
Comment 4 Cosimo Cecchi 2012-08-30 19:24:08 UTC
Review of attachment 218197 [details] [review]:

I think this looks good now.