On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 17:33, Simon Wilkinson <s...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2011, at 14:04, omall...@msu.edu wrote: > >> Quoting Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net>: >> >> Maybe some documentation in the code where the changes need to occur would >> be useful? If it is, then it would also be useful to have a standardized >> status attached to the >> comment so you can search for it, ie // ipv6 support needed, //ipv6 >> support done. > > I think the problem is that such an audit of the entire code base is likely > to be a considerable amount of work, and require a reasonable depth of > understanding of the code. For example, it's far from clear to the untrained > eye which structures are serialised to disk, or are part of a Ubik database, > and which are purely held in memory for the life of a process. >
Another problem is that documentation projects aren't permitted for GSoC: http://www.google-melange.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2011/faqs#documentation -- Erik Dalén _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
