On 5/30/2017 9:26 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > Sorry if it sounded that way, I of course meant nothing like it. I just > meant that introducing docs standard should not be made in a routine > unrelated patch, where it could be missed by many people, but as an > ordered process. Otherwise, you'd introduce Doxygen, somebody unaware of > it would introduce another thing, and pretty soon we have code > documented in a dozen of incompatible ways and it's a mess. I certainly > did not imply any malice on your part, just that we need to do it in an > explicit way that informs everybody what it happening. > >> used to properly documenting my code, as it is part of any professional >> code base in my opinion. > > Surely, and it's without doubt a good thing. We just need to do it > right, otherwise we'd have to spend more time later to fix it. It > requires a bit of time, but better spend it now than end up with code > documented in a way that no doc system would be able to parse, IMO. >
No offense taken. :) I totally agree with you in all of this. Writing an RFC for every tiny thing is a lot of work, but it is the correct way of doing things, so I'll sit down and do exactly that. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
