prabhakar.csengg at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 09:23:58 CEST 2012
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Prabhakar Lad,
> In message <CA+V-a8vZ-715eL1MNvxhYCGNWv5YSGuoNn5hZQeMFN5ZKtpKMQ at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>> > I really like the idea of annotating functions with proper description, thus I
>> > would like to ask, can we reach a general agreement and start using kerneldoc in
>> > U-Boot to annotate functions and possibly generate documentation? Or shall we
>> > use anything else?
>> +1 for kerneldoc.
> Could you please explain what exactly your vote is supposed to mean?
My vote was for using kerneldoc to annotate functions and generate documentation
> Shall it become mandatory for all new code submitted? Shall all
> patches submitted from now on be rejected when the code they touch is
> not accordingly documented?
Not for all the patches I would say. This should be compulsory for the
patches touching some generic code (for example the common folder).
> What is the goal you see for using this?
Readability of the code will increase.
> I'm afraid I don't know what exactly you voted for...
> Best regards,
> Wolfgang Denk
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
> How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to
> screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.
More information about the U-Boot