On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
> We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
> So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since 2.076 anyhow).
Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or download).

https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298

On 15 June 2016 at 03:58, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
> We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
> generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json
> generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
> So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
> website shipped with a binary release?
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1374
>
> [¹]: https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/7cc6e938154f90aa49fa 6451a85b13e35ab2de99/chmgen.d
>

I like the CHM docs.
I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra
is linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I
solved this problem by building the CHM via WINE ;)
Maybe this is a possible solution?

On 16 June 2016 at 06:22, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution compared to
>> anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM with PDF... They are made for different things...
>>
>
> I forgot to mention - I use CHM on Linux. It is not my fault that opensource community could not come up with a better or/and standardised solution... The only standard solution for this that Linux has are man pages - clearly not suitable this purpose! Other, better solutions are there, but are not adopted by all - Gnome has one format, KDE another, etc... CHAOS. Therefore, I decided to use CHM.
>

I approve of this message!
At my old work, we released CHM docs specifically for linux users too. They
preferred the CHM index and searchability compared to PDF or something like
that.

On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>
>> It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
>> We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
>> generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json
>> generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
>> So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
>> website shipped with a binary release?
>>
>
> Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important
> issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since
> 2.076 anyhow).
> Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or
> download).
>
> https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298



Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then pulled
the plug anyway? O_o
Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the visual
studio ecosystem better?
Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
difference between competent reading applications.

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>
>>> It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
>>> We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
>>> generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json
>>> generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
>>> So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
>>> website shipped with a binary release?
>>>
>>
>> Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important
>> issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since
>> 2.076 anyhow).
>> Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or
>> download).
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298
>
>
>
> Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then
> pulled the plug anyway? O_o
> Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.
>

On 2/17/2018 7:04 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since 2.076 anyhow).
> Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or download).
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298
> 

I find dman very useful, as I'm a command line sorta guy. In fact, I wrote it because it's a major convenience for me.

On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy <danni.coy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the
> visual studio ecosystem better?
> Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
> difference between competent reading applications.
>

CHM has a competent search and index feature.

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy <danni.coy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the
>> visual studio ecosystem better?
>> Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
>> difference between competent reading applications.
>>
>
> CHM has a competent search and index feature.
>

Isn't that more up to application than the documentation format?

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>
>
> Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then pulled
> the plug anyway? O_o
> Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

It's marked as "[temporarily]".
Also from GH where Vladimir tried to add chmgen to dlang.org's CI.

>> [...]
> No hurries, I'll disable the d.chm build for now so I can build the beta and we can decide on readding or removing later.

https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2213

On 17 February 2018 at 18:32, Danni Coy <danni.coy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy <danni.coy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the
>>> visual studio ecosystem better?
>>> Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
>>> difference between competent reading applications.
>>>
>>
>> CHM has a competent search and index feature.
>>
>
> Isn't that more up to application than the documentation format?
>

The index is part of the CHM format.