> Hey there, > > First, thanks for the effort of discussing documentation related issues (there > are quite some) in Amarok, but... > > I'm *all* for doing this the other way around: > Better put the class/architectural documentation into the source code as far > as possible. Qt does that very heavily and succeeds in providing an > comprehensive and up-to-date source code documentation as developers are still > paying attention to it. I'm not really convinced that stuff like that should > go to a Wiki anyway. > (You could still link from the Wiki to our apidocs, though). > > Reasoning is obvious: > * Wiki-Documentation quickly gets out of date / out of sync with source code. > * Long-time involved developers (as me) don't look at / adjust it at all. > ?(I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here, heh) > > Doing inline documentation will also have the positive side-effect that our > API-docs may get polished sooner or later. > > Thoughts?
>What Kevin said. >Typing // or /** and then some stuff is way quicker and easier than >editing some wiki page. The time that would be wasted on wiki markup >is better spent coding and documenting inline. There's of course no >problem in generating apidocs from there or even copying it to a wiki, >but documentation in the code should come first. >Cheers, >-- >Teo What you said does make sense. If the documentation in the code is finished faster, it would benefit people who look at the code. Thanks, Sandeep
_______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
