On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Juhani Connolly wrote: > I don't think that requiring a basic table of > conf-name/type/required/value is a particurly onerous requirement for > new component submissions.
+1 > Would it be reasonable to make this a requirement for submissions? If > so, what do we feel it should be: > - javadoc? > - manual? In general, if it's a non-trivial API it should be javadoc'd. If it affects user configuration it should go in the manual. I'd agree with saying that reviewers should request docs be included in all patches from now on, but I'd stop short of outright rejecting a good patch that didn't include enough docs. Thanks, Mike
