design directory, ERM; was: Doxygen - is there a status?

[John Ralls]

On Sep 4, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:

> On Thursday 04 September 2014 15:11:59 John Ralls wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Frank H. Ellenberger <frank.h.ellenberger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Am 04.09.2014 um 16:26 schrieb John Ralls:
> > >> Just like Carsten you missed the point that the *design*
> > >> documentation doesn't and can't live in the code files and isn't
> > >> part
> > >> of writing a patch.
> > > 
> > > Just for completeness:
> > > There is a bunch of texi files in src/doc/design.
> > > - But
> > > https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commits/master/src/doc/design
> > > shows only sparse updates after 2001.
> > > - And Intro starts with "This whole document is completely outdated.
> > > Don't read this. All function names and every described structure
> > > has
> > > changed completely. Only read this if you want to know how gnucash
> > > looked like in 1999. This is completely outdated!"
> > > 
> > > So, I agree, mediawiki texts are today easier to maintain than
> > > texinfo files. Perhaps we should replace the content of this
> > > directory with a file containing pointers to the respective wiki
> > > pages.
> > > 
> > > But we should add somewhere in the doxygen linked readme files
> > > - A sketch of the modules, their purpose and relations
> > 
> > Better done in the master header file for each module than in separate
> > “read me” files, but the problem is keeping them current.
> > > - Explanation of namespaces gnc_, qof_, xacc_, …
>  
> YES PLEASE !!!
>  

Yes what? 

Regards,
John Ralls