Where should project Weston go?
daniel at fooishbar.org
Fri Dec 12 09:01:12 PST 2014
On 12 December 2014 at 16:10, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:17:58 +0200
> Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamuffo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2014-12-12 13:29 GMT+02:00 Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>:
> > > Oooh, whilst we're talking about requirements for merging stuff ... how
> > > about enforcing decent Doxygen bits as a hard requirement for merging
> > > anything big-ish? Be that internal interfaces inside Weston, or
> > > changes.
> > I think we can try this. The other project with this policy that i
> > know of is Qt, and it has great documentation.
> Then we should probably start generating some docs from Weston, too. :-)
> What's the criterion? All completely new WL_EXPORT functions?
I'd say my personal gating criteria for libweston existing would be docs
for _all_ WL_EXPORTed functions. If no-one can be bothered to document it,
then it's probably not really worthwhile; if documenting it shows that the
API sucks, then we can fix it. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel