On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 11:08 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:23 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On 2010-12-02 at 21:59 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > > > > So just in case, let's agree to disagree & keep the patches coming! > > > :) > > > > As a conclusion, what about to combine Miklos' check for the missing > > documentation with a commit hook, so that it does not allow you to > > commit _new_ files without (at least the high level) documentation? ;-) > > I'm actually NOT in favor of this. As much as I believe in providing > good code documentation for new code, this is a bit too far.
My rationale: Many times when I work on feature branches, I commit stuff but intentionally not provide documentation because the role of the class/method/whatever may change during the course of the implementation. This requirement would break my workflow, and I wouldn't appreciate that. Encouraging good documentation is a must, but making it a requirement even for new files unconditionally is bad. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc <kyosh...@novell.com> _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
