I only have a response for one thing regarding autogsdoc...
On Friday, February 26, 2016, Richard Frith-Macdonald <
richard.frith-macdonald@brainstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2016, at 05:35, Svetlana A. Tkachenko <svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:
>
> Gregory Casamento wrote:
>> Speaking of documentation I am of the
>> concerted opinion that we should do away with autogsdoc. The reason
>> for this is because it is yet another example of NIH.
>
> ... not invented here?
Not true ... it just pre-dates popular auto-documentation, and long pre-dates anything that understood ObjC, so was started before other options were available.
GNUstep is an old project, and there's quite a bit of stuff like that which, to the uninformed looks like NIH, but in fact is just the way it is because it pre-dates alternative free software implementations.
Yes. I am very much well aware of this fact. Many things in GNUstep predate other projects. I've been with the project almost 20 years. :)
My point in saying NIH is that, at some point, and for some things (like autogsdoc), it is better to let them go instead of holding on for legacy reasons. It might be nice to have some really gorgeous documentation for GNUstep generated by a tool created by a project whose dedicated purpose is to make really nice documentation.
Just a thought. At this point autogsdoc creates HTML and looks like documentation from the early 90s. This could be improved with CSS, but I wonder if moving to something like "appledoc" (a project meant to duplicate apples documentation look and feel) or doxygen might not be a good idea.