thanks and introduction

[Yong Bakos]

> On Mar 9, 2016, at 2:16 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The simple-* demos are self-contained code wise, almost all the other
> demos build upon the "toytoolkit" (window.c/h) which supports a lot more
> features.
> 
> One more example worth mentioning is weston-info.c, which is an
> independent tool that prints out the protocol interfaces supported by
> any compositor (not just weston), and some more details on the
> interfaces it knows about.

Thanks Pekka and Bryce,
I'm digging into the simple-* demos.


> On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> In particular we lack much depth in
> introductory guides, so as you go through your learning curve, maybe
> take notes and consider making tutorials or other "getting started" type
> materials.

I'm working on distilling my notes into a doc. Need to verify their
correctness again on a fresh vm. I'll also try to distill these steps
into something usable in wayland-build-tools.


> If you run 'make check' on wayland you'll notice a bunch
> of warnings about missing documentation.  The missing parameter
> documentation should be extremely simple to add.

So, just to verify, grep'ing make check for "not documented" shows a lot
of structs, struct members, macro defs, and entire functions that lack
documentation. I don't see any (I believe) warnings about just missing
parameters. As this is my first contribution I just want to make sure I
get things right. My output:

https://gist.github.com/ybakos/acd582a6001013df11e6

Are all "not documented" elements fair game, or is there
something that deserves higher priority?  Maybe point out one specific
line in that output just so it's clear to me.

Thanks for the initial hand-holding, I hope to walk on my own soon. :)

yong

PS. If this chatter doesn't belong on wayland-devel just let me know.