From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] KernelDoc
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:19:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5063EFE5.4010601@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120926195412.AC7B32031A9@gemini.denx.de>
On 09/26/2012 09:54 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
<snip>
>>> If I change the calling interface, must I add documentation then?
>>
>> Of course, yes.
>
> Didn't we agree that we want to make it easier for people to
> contribute code? If somebody who just wants to improve a small detail
> in the code is now not only enforced to fix the coding style, but
> _also_ document the whole file, this will probably not exactly attract
> new contributors.
Full ACK.
<snip>
>>> - Who will be responsible for maintaining the documentation?
>>
>> I believe for now we should only focus on using this as a standardized method of
>> anotating functions. The reviewer of the patch shall check if the patch is
>> correct incl. the documentation, as usual.
>
> And missing or incorrect documentation would cause the patch to be
> rejected?
Please don't. As you mentioned above, we (in U-Boot) already have very
strict rules making it not easy for especially new developers to push
their changes upstream. I fear that with such a new requirement, more
users / developers will abandon pushing their patches at some time.
BTW: I've done quite some Linux kernel work and never used this
kernel-doc style so far. Its not mandatory in the Linux kernel. Not that
this really matters in regards to U-Boot. But my personal feeling is,
that we shouldn't make it much harder to push patches in U-Boot than in
Linux.
Just my 0.02$.
Thanks,
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-27 6:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-25 20:46 [U-Boot] KernelDoc Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 6:50 ` Prabhakar Lad
2012-09-26 7:12 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 7:23 ` Prabhakar Lad
2012-09-26 10:07 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 7:17 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 15:26 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 18:50 ` Joe Hershberger
2012-09-26 19:05 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 19:54 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 19:58 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 20:57 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 21:31 ` Tom Rini
2012-09-26 23:38 ` Marek Vasut
2012-10-01 8:54 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-10-01 9:07 ` Marek Vasut
2012-10-01 10:35 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-10-01 10:37 ` Marek Vasut
2012-10-09 22:49 ` Tom Rini
2012-10-09 23:35 ` Marek Vasut
2012-10-14 20:26 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 20:00 ` Tom Rini
2012-09-27 6:19 ` Stefan Roese [this message]
2012-09-27 17:26 ` Tom Rini
2012-09-27 17:28 ` Fabio Estevam
2012-09-27 23:50 ` Graeme Russ
2012-09-28 0:28 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-28 0:28 ` Scott Wood
2012-09-28 0:44 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 19:05 ` Tom Rini
2012-09-26 19:10 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 19:46 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 19:54 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 20:49 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-09-26 23:36 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-26 19:57 ` Tom Rini
2012-09-26 23:39 ` Marek Vasut
2012-09-28 19:48 ` Marek Vasut
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5063EFE5.4010601@denx.de \
--to=sr@denx.de \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox