On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:43 AM, David Winslow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/08/2010 09:30 AM, Sebastian Benthall wrote: > >> One thing I can think of right off the bat that is comments on the Python >> stuff in particular. I think it would be good to adopt a standard for that >> and try to stick to it. >> >> I'm not sure I understood this; it is a vague response to a long email. > Are you saying that we should have some coding guidelines for patches to > the Python code that stipulate comment formatting? > Yes. Precisely. > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/5.1.1+Coding+Conventions > http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/#coding-style > http://trac.openlayers.org/wiki/CodingStandards Yes. The reason why I mentioned Python specifically was because I thought we had more or less de facto had the OpenLayers commenting standards for the JavaScript (though I suppose we should decide whether we should use those or the Ext ones, which if I recall correctly are different in order to support API doc generation from the restructured text comments) and (I had assumed) the GeoServer standards for the GeoServer-y parts. Adopting the Django coding style for the Python bits sounds like a great idea for me. I notice that it though it provides something of a style guide for docstrings, though, it doesn't say much more than "use action words." I guess that's better than nothing. We could go with that and then adjust later if its not sufficient. Along these lines, I'd also be interested in having some browsable API > documentation once dev.geonode.org is available to us for such things. A > certain level of documentation coverage could be another factor in patch > acceptability. > > > -- > David Winslow > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ > -- Sebastian Benthall OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
