> At 05:27 PM 1/8/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >I also object strongly to the lack of documentation. Patches that
> >change public APIs and come without doco updates should be rejected
> >out of hand, IMNSHO. Keeping the documentation up to date should
> >not be considered optional --- especially not when you're talking
> >about something that makes subtle and pervasive changes to library
> >behavior.
>
> Boy, Tom's really laid it out in excellent style. If the author of
> such changes doesn't document them, chances are that the documentation
> won't get done. That's very bad.
>
> The automatic rejection of undocumented patches that change the API
> or other user-visible behavior shouldn't be controversial. I know
> there are some folks who aren't native-english speakers, so perhaps
> you don't want to require that the implementor of such patches provide
> the final documentation wording. But the information should be there
> and spelled out in a form that can be very easily moved to the docs.
If it is missing, we get back to them before final release and ask for
doc patches. They get in there one way or another.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026