-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 111
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
Should doxygen really be required? #75
Comments
No. Forgot to test without it i guess. -------- Opprinnelig melding -------- Just tested a new setup and cmake failed due to missing doxygen. Is that intended? — |
Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand. < asbesto underwear on/>
|
Outside of its in-source C++ comment form? |
Yes
|
Well, I have looked at the formatted output occasionally, but mostly to verify that I didn't break it or to check the effects of certain formatting requests. I guess that technically counts as "using it", but I certainly don't look at it with any kind of regularity outside the comment form. That I do do however. |
I agree that doxygen should not be required. |
o/ (at least for opm-material and ewoms.) but I think doxygen should only be an option, not a requirement. |
Hilarious ;-)
|
I have used it too. I don't think doxygen should be a build dependency. Whether we should ensure doxygen formatted comments/documentation is available is another discussion. |
cannot reproduce. which unstable perturbation of the build system are you using? |
Voting to close. |
+1 |
EclEpsScalingPoints: remove incorrect assertation
Just tested a new setup and cmake failed due to missing doxygen. Is that intended?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: