Dear Tom Rini,
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> >
> > > Dear Marek Vasut,
> > >
> > > In message <201210011107.45164.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > > Agreed, not the whole file. But, can you check the rules I tried to
> > > > outline?
> >
Dear Tom Rini,
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> >
> > > Dear Marek Vasut,
> > >
> > > In message <201210011107.45164.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > > Agreed, not the whole file. But, can you check the rules I tried to
> > > > outline?
> >
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang Denk,
>
> > Dear Marek Vasut,
> >
> > In message <201210011107.45164.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > Agreed, not the whole file. But, can you check the rules I tried to
> > > outline?
> >
> > Is there a summary somewher
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek Vasut,
>
> In message <201210011107.45164.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > Agreed, not the whole file. But, can you check the rules I tried to
> > outline?
>
> Is there a summary somewhere? Something we could add to the wiki?
I sent this on friday:
So I've been h
Dear Marek Vasut,
In message <201210011107.45164.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> Agreed, not the whole file. But, can you check the rules I tried to outline?
Is there a summary somewhere? Something we could add to the wiki?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek Vasut,
>
> In message <201209270138.12860.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > I think is kind of unfair to expect such efforts for some basicly
> > > unrelated changes. If I were in such a situation, I'd feel tempted to
> > > throw the towel.
> >
> > Why would you d
Dear Marek Vasut,
In message <201209270138.12860.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> > I think is kind of unfair to expect such efforts for some basicly
> > unrelated changes. If I were in such a situation, I'd feel tempted to
> > throw the towel.
>
> Why would you do so ... you change interface, you
Dear Marek Vasut,
> Hi all!
>
> I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding style. I
> tried using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the U-Boot Coding
> Style now, thus it was rejected.
>
> I really like the idea of annotating functions with proper description,
> th
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 09/26/2012 10:26:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> >
> > > Dear Marek,
> > > - Will we make this mandatory? So that we will reject all new code
> > >
> > > that is not documented according to kernel-doc rules?
> >
> > Yes please, make it mandatory. Oth
Dear Graeme Russ,
> Hi All,
>
> A bit late on the bandwagon, but for what it is worth I have thought
> any form of officially sanctioned (and encouraged) in-line
> documentation would be 'A Good Thing'(tm)
+1
> I had a quick look at kerneldoc and doxygen and while doxygen is far
> more powerful
On 09/26/2012 10:26:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek,
> - Will we make this mandatory? So that we will reject all new code
> that is not documented according to kernel-doc rules?
Yes please, make it mandatory. Otherwise people won't obey and the
documentation
wil
Hi All,
A bit late on the bandwagon, but for what it is worth I have thought
any form of officially sanctioned (and encouraged) in-line
documentation would be 'A Good Thing'(tm)
I had a quick look at kerneldoc and doxygen and while doxygen is far
more powerful, it's also a lot less 'natural' as a
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> 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 a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/12 23:19, Stefan Roese wrote:
[snip]
> 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
> f
On 09/26/2012 09:54 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> 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 n
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/26/12 12:10, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:46:10PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Hi all!
> >>>
> >>> I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot
> >>> coding style. I tried using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek,
>
> In message <201209262158.48495.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > Or if you want to get your critical bug fix
> > > in now, but the custodian promises a doc patch for half a year later?
> >
> > I cannot parse this. I agree the critical fix has a high-prio.
>
>
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek,
>
> In message <201209262154.59207.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > OT: I would hate to rework the patches that already follow that style and
> > then rework them again. Maybe we can do a compromise, drop the initial
> > double- asterisk and otherwise follow the ker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/12 13:57, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
[snip]
>>> Can such checking (all functions have a kernel-doc comment,
>>> which covers the return value and all arguments) be done
>>> automatically, say throuch checkpatch?
>>
>> I would love to see this.
>
Dear Marek,
In message <201209262158.48495.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> > Or if you want to get your critical bug fix
> > in now, but the custodian promises a doc patch for half a year later?
>
> I cannot parse this. I agree the critical fix has a high-prio.
You suggested that including kernel
Dear Marek,
In message <201209262154.59207.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> OT: I would hate to rework the patches that already follow that style and
> then
> rework them again. Maybe we can do a compromise, drop the initial double-
> asterisk and otherwise follow the kernel-doc?
That is always po
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/12 12:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Can such checking (all functions have a kernel-doc comment, which
> covers the return value and all arguments) be done automatically,
> say throuch checkpatch?
It's been a long time but I believe you see tho
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek,
>
> In message <201209261726.55611.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > - Will we make this mandatory? So that we will reject all new code
> > >
> > > that is not documented according to kernel-doc rules?
> >
> > Yes please, make it mandatory. Otherwise people wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/12 12:10, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:46:10PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot
>>> coding style. I tried using KernelDoc in a patc
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek,
>
> In message <201209262110.18172.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > But we need to borrow the Documentation/DocBook
> > > Makefile and logic and so on from the kernel first. And add template
> > > files for the DM sections so something can be spit out.
> >
> > I
Dear Marek,
In message <201209261726.55611.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> > - Will we make this mandatory? So that we will reject all new code
> > that is not documented according to kernel-doc rules?
>
> Yes please, make it mandatory. Otherwise people won't obey and the
> documentation
> wi
Dear Marek,
In message <201209262110.18172.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> > But we need to borrow the Documentation/DocBook
> > Makefile and logic and so on from the kernel first. And add template
> > files for the DM sections so something can be spit out.
>
> I'd leave that for step 2 (document
Dear Tom Rini,
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:46:10PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding
> > style. I tried using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the
> > U-Boot Coding Style now, thus it was rejected.
> >
> > I
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:46:10PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding
> style. I tried using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the
> U-Boot Coding Style now, thus it was rejected.
>
> I really like the idea of annotat
Dear Joe Hershberger,
[..]
> > Yes please, make it mandatory. Otherwise people won't obey and the
> > documentation will suffer ... and all this would be meaningless.
>
> I think mandatory should only be for newly added functions.
Pardon my wording, this is what I had in mind.
> There is
> alr
Hi Marek,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang Denk,
>
>> Dear Marek,
>>
>> In message <201209252246.10322.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>> > I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding style. I
>> > tried using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not p
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
> Dear Marek,
>
> In message <201209252246.10322.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
> > I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding style. I
> > tried using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the U-Boot Coding
> > Style now, thus it was rejected.
> >
> > I
Dear Prabhakar Lad,
In message
you wrote:
>
> > Could you please explain what exactly your vote is supposed to mean?
> >
> My vote was for using kerneldoc to annotate functions and generate
> documentation
...
> Readability of the code will increase.
Which sort of documentation would you want
Hi Wolfgang,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Prabhakar Lad,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> > I really like the idea of annotating functions with proper description,
>> > thus I
>> > would like to ask, can we reach a general agreement and start using
>> > ke
Dear Marek,
In message <201209252246.10322.ma...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding style. I
> tried
> using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the U-Boot Coding Style now,
> thus it was rejected.
>
> I really like the idea of anno
Dear Prabhakar Lad,
In message
you wrote:
>
> > I really like the idea of annotating functions with proper description,
> > thus I
> > would like to ask, can we reach a general agreement and start using
> > kerneldoc in
> > U-Boot to annotate functions and possibly generate documentation? Or
Hi Marek,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding style. I
> tried
> using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the U-Boot Coding Style now,
> thus it was rejected.
>
> I really like the idea of anno
Hi all!
I've had a discussion with Wolfgang just now about U-Boot coding style. I tried
using KernelDoc in a patch, which is not part of the U-Boot Coding Style now,
thus it was rejected.
I really like the idea of annotating functions with proper description, thus I
would like to ask, can we r
38 matches
Mail list logo
