directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:04:41 GMT
+1

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Emmanuel L├ęcharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> there is a flury of patches comming for the newly accepted Kerby code
> base. That's all good except that we need them to respect a minimum
> rules to be accepted.
>
> Overall, the accepted code does not contain any Javadoc (well, quite a
> few would be more accurate). That's ok, but at some point, it has to
> change. Javadoc is not a punsishement, and it's not a task that has to
> be fullfiled by an intern. Javadoc is what makes teh code easy to
> understand, and more important, to maintain.
>
> I know that we have never been good enough - and we will not be the best
> javadocer on earth, ever - but still, we must do better.
>
> There are two ways to get this situation fixed :
> - either we spend months fixing all the existing code by adding the
> missing Javadoc
> - or we fix it on the fly, little by little.
>
> I'm quite sure no-one will imagine that #1 is the way to go. That would
> kill the project before it gets started. I'd rather think that #2 is teh
> way to go.
>
> I'd like to see the proposed patches to contain correct and valid
> Javadoc from now on, and I'd also like to see the class being modified
> to have their Javadoc reviewed and fixed, to some extent.
>
> I know it's not funny, but this is the only way to get some code quality
> we can be proud of, but more important, a code that some new committers
> can maintain in the near future and more important in the long term.
>
> Many thanks !
>
>

Mime
View raw message