Where should project Weston go?

[Bryce Harrington]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:01:12PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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
> > protocol
> > > > 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. :)

This would go a long way, I think it's a good idea.  I know we have some
non-english speaking contributors, so we'll need to make allowances here
and there but hopefully the required reviewer can assist when needed.

For changes of this type and size, we might expect to see some test
additions/updates as well.  I know from personal experience I sometimes
don't find out how crap my interface is until I'm writing a test for
it...

Bryce