Re: [PUSHED] Documentation for sfx2

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com> wrote:
> >     https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/1599
>
> Do people generally consider it a good idea to include binary
> documentation files (rather than some helpful ASCII art in the
> existing */README files, say) in the core repo?  I personally
> consider it not very practical.

Let me quote my comment from gerrit I posted before approving this
change:

> Nice, thanks! :-)
>
> Two ideas for a possibly follow-up patch:
>
> 1) Wouldn't it make more sense to store this as fodg, so git diff is
> more meaningful when later this is extended?
>
> 2) sfx2/README should mention this file, I think, so it's easier to find
> it.

An ASCII-art is even easier to read, but I think an (f)odg is far
better, than nothing as well.

Miklos

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature