+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:[email protected]] 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:[email protected]] 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 !
