You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> on 2015/01/15 10:52:21 UTC
[Kerberos] Patches requirements
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 !
Re: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
+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 Lécharny <el...@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 !
>
>
Re: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 16/01/15 02:58, Chen, Lin1 a écrit :
> Sorry for confusion. By "+1" I'm just meaning I like the idea.
No confusion, dont worry !
Glad that such a proposal get such an approval... I will try to add
Javadoc myself ;-)
RE: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
Posted by "Chen, Lin1" <li...@intel.com>.
Sorry for confusion. By "+1" I'm just meaning I like the idea.
Thanks,
Lin
-----Original Message-----
From: Chen, Lin1 [mailto:lin1.chen@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 09:45
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: RE: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
+1
I am sorry for missing Javadoc in my codes. And I will keep in mind from now on!
Thanks,
Lin
-----Original Message-----
From: Zheng, Kai [mailto:kai.zheng@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 18:26
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: RE: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
+1
Thanks Emmanuel for making this out. Let's follow the #2 way.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:52 PM
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
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 !
RE: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
Posted by "Chen, Lin1" <li...@intel.com>.
+1
I am sorry for missing Javadoc in my codes. And I will keep in mind from now on!
Thanks,
Lin
-----Original Message-----
From: Zheng, Kai [mailto:kai.zheng@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 18:26
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: RE: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
+1
Thanks Emmanuel for making this out. Let's follow the #2 way.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:52 PM
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
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 !
RE: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
Posted by "Zheng, Kai" <ka...@intel.com>.
+1
Thanks Emmanuel for making this out. Let's follow the #2 way.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:52 PM
To: Apache Directory Developers List
Subject: [Kerberos] Patches requirements
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 !