On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 17:34 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:14:12AM -0500, Kohei Yoshida <kyosh...@novell.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > Hm, what about enforcing it only in master / libreoffice-* branches? > (Just an idea.)
That would be fine with me. I would still like to avoid making it a requirement, but keeping it master only is bearable. I still prefer not having that as a requirement though. Running the missing-doc script every now and then like we do with cppchecks and Caolan's callcatcher would be my preferred approach. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc <kyosh...@novell.com> _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
