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 commenting style. Besides, we really only have C to worry about, so we don't need to drag in the overhead of a documentation format that supports every language under the sun :) One point I agree on is that we must not make the barrier to entry for new developers any higher than strictly necessary. For me, I would not expect to be forced to document anything that was not already documented - i.e. if I change a function (adding a parameter, changing it's return value, etc) that was not already kerneldoc'd, I would have a dummy spit if I was asked to resubmit with complete documentation. I'm thinking that someone with Super Saiyan levels of script-fu could probably automate the addition of kerneldoc stubs with 'undocumented' text I really don't mind what the documentation rules are, but the MUST be on the wiki. One this note, I think we should merge the 'Coding Style' and 'Patches' pages of the wiki and rename them to something more obvious like, for example, 'Rules for submitting U-Boot patches'. Also, I think a regular reminder (say every two weeks) on the mailing list pointing out the 'developer rules' on the wiki would be good - we tend to get quite a number of on-off patches from new developers that don't meet the submission criteria simply because they a blissfully ignorant of them. Slightly OT - what is happening with the proposed patch tracker? Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
