On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 23:42 +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On 01.06.2011 16:28, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote on Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:22:51 -0400: > >> On Jun 1, 2011 10:09 AM, "Stefan Sperling"<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:57:24AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > >>>> I had a define in workqueue.c that somebody recently prefixed with SVN_. > >>> That was me. > >>> > >>>> I never intended it to be part of *any* API. just a little helper for us > >> devs. > >>>> Yet now it shows up in knobs, and is an "official API"?!? > >>>> > >>>> Seems we may want to reconsider how stuff magically becomes a "knob". > >>> I don't really see the point of documenting this define in notes/knobs > >>> either. Should I move this back to a file-private define that isn't > >>> documented in knobs? > >> No need to rename it (either name would be valid in that file), but yanking > >> it from knobs makes sense to me. > >> > > knobs can list both public and developer-only macros... if we want it to > > list just public macros let's rm the file and add a section to the > > doxygen docs. > > > I copied the "SVN_ prefix makes it public" statement from > Daniel's original knobs file. > > IMHO, however, the intention of that file is to serve as a > central point of reference to svn devs. I suggest that we > simply remove said statement and replace it with a "this > is SVN-dev-private information" disclaimer. > > An enthusiastic user may still take the information in that > file to find out "what if" but I consider it a tool - not a commitment.
+1. - Julian
