Skip to content
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

Closed
blattms opened this issue Feb 16, 2016 · 13 comments
Closed

Should doxygen really be required? #75

blattms opened this issue Feb 16, 2016 · 13 comments
Labels

Comments

@blattms
Copy link
Member

blattms commented Feb 16, 2016

Just tested a new setup and cmake failed due to missing doxygen. Is that intended?

@akva2
Copy link
Member

akva2 commented Feb 16, 2016

No. Forgot to test without it i guess.

-------- Opprinnelig melding --------
Fra: Markus Blatt notifications@github.com
Dato: 16.02.2016 19:04 (GMT+01:00)
Til: OPM/opm-common opm-common@noreply.github.com
Emne: [opm-common] Should doxygen really be required? (#75)

Just tested a new setup and cmake failed due to missing doxygen. Is that intended?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/75.

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand.

< asbesto underwear on/>
16. feb. 2016 19:04 skrev "Markus Blatt" notifications@github.com
følgende:

Just tested a new setup and cmake failed due to missing doxygen. Is that
intended?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#75.

@bska
Copy link
Member

bska commented Feb 16, 2016

Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand.

Outside of its in-source C++ comment form?

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

Yes
16. feb. 2016 20:12 skrev "Bård Skaflestad" notifications@github.com
følgende:

Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand.

Outside of its in-source C++ comment form?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#75 (comment).

@bska
Copy link
Member

bska commented Feb 16, 2016

Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand.

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.

@atgeirr
Copy link
Member

atgeirr commented Feb 16, 2016

I agree that doxygen should not be required.

@andlaus
Copy link
Contributor

andlaus commented Feb 16, 2016

Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand.

o/
/|
/ \

(at least for opm-material and ewoms.) but I think doxygen should only be an option, not a requirement.

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

Hilarious ;-)
16. feb. 2016 22:44 skrev "Andreas Lauser" notifications@github.com
følgende:

Everyone who has used the OPM doxygen documentation raise their hand.

o/
/|
/ \

(at least for opm-material and ewoms.) but I think doxygen should only be
an option, not a requirement.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#75 (comment).

@alfbr
Copy link
Member

alfbr commented Feb 17, 2016

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.

@akva2
Copy link
Member

akva2 commented Feb 18, 2016

cannot reproduce. which unstable perturbation of the build system are you using?

@atgeirr
Copy link
Member

atgeirr commented Apr 12, 2016

Last message on this was "cannot reproduce" from @akva2, can you still produce the problem @blattms?

@pgdr
Copy link
Contributor

pgdr commented Jun 7, 2016

Voting to close.

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

Voting to close.

+1

@blattms blattms closed this as completed Jun 8, 2016
akva2 pushed a commit to akva2/opm-common that referenced this issue Jun 10, 2022
EclEpsScalingPoints: remove incorrect assertation
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants