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.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.