On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Dana Jansens <dan...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Stephen Chenney >> <schen...@chromium.org>wrote: >> >>> I don't doubt there are poor comments, both outdated and useless. >>> That's a reviewing failure. You have simply highlighted the fact that any >>> standard for comments requires reviewer attention. Hence "cost of >>> maintaining comments". >>> >> >> I don't know how to review a patch and make sure all relevant comments >> are updated. >> >> As I have illustrated before, you can be modifying a function X, then a >> completely random function A which calls B that in turn calls C that in >> turns D ... that in turn calls X may have a comment dependent on the >> previous behavior of X without ever mentioning X. How am I supposed to know >> that there is such a comment? >> > > How is that different than the same question but replace "comment" with > "behaviour"? In both cases A is no longer doing what it expected. Something > is going to break, and A will have to be fixed/updated, comment included. > Not necessarily. First off, the behavioral change may not have any user visible behavioral change, or that while X behaves differently, it doesn't affect the way A works due to some other changes in the same patch. Or it's possible that new behavior of A is expected and desirable but the change was made at much lower level and affected hundreds of other functions. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
