-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
Rework the documentation based on the renaming of the project #154
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
This makes Sphinx generate the anchors correctly.
This uses the more modern name and points users to the more complete documentation site for details.
This removes yet-another location where a PEP was directly referenced.
This updates the documentation theme, content and structure, following a similar pattern to what the `installer` package follows.
This class is not used or tested within this codebase.
@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ | |||
# Minimal makefile for Sphinx documentation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a reason to drop the Makefile? make html
is how I'm used to building Sphinx docs locally - am I out of date?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the last question: Maybe? :P
I tend to run sphinx-build docs build/docs
/ sphinx-autobuild docs build/docs
, which I find straightforward-enough. I am down to add a tox target for the documentation build instead -- since realistically, there's both environment management and the documentation build command that are reasonably coupled. I'm ambivalent on the make html
but if we do want to keep those, I'd prefer to file a follow up adding those back, as generated by the latest Sphinx version.
Thanks! No worries about the conflict with #152; I'll fix them once this is in. |
Co-authored-by: Thomas Kluyver <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Kluyver <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Kluyver <[email protected]>
@takluyver A gentle nudge for a re-review. :) |
On the basis that:
I'm gonna go ahead and merge this without waiting on a re-review. If someone reckons that might be overstepping or would otherwise prefer that I wait in the future, please let me know! |
Thanks Pradyun, and sorry I didn't get around to reviewing it again - I'm happy, in any case. |
Toward #136
@takluyver I just noticed #152 (🤦🏽) and this has a few overlapping changes with that.