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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
