On Friday 15 May 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote: > What I wanted to know is if there is a need > for some one to poke through the documentation, aka openocd.texi, to > look for grammatical and spelling errors as well as places where further > explanation may be a good thing. I don't know if anyone is already > doing this, so I wanted to check in.
I also noticed that needed going. I have a few small updates, mostly of the "this doc is missing/incomplete" variety. > Another thing I wanted to check in > on was the state of comments in many of the source files. Something I > have wanted to do is to go through everything and add the doxygen style > comments so that the Doxyfile could be worth something. I don't mind > attempting to tackle this because it will help me to better understand > the framework behind OpenOCD, but Yeah, whoever does that gets to understand the code a LOT better! I suggest you focus on small/reviewable doc patches, and don't get too antsy when review/merge doesn't happen right away. Also, before you dive in wholesale ... I suggest you start with a few areas that have particularly bugged you. One thing you have *right now* is a fairly fresh outlook, which means you'll have a very different understanding than you will a few months from now (when you've become a jaded old campaigner). Capture those fresh insights while you can, before your mind gets too well trained about where it should have blind spots. ;) > those more experienced in the source > will have to verify my comment blocks. I have also noticed that the > comments are rather lacking, so this seems like a good idea to me. Yes, better doc is always good ... and you're very right that doc patches need particular review attention. For the doxygen stuff, please focus on the higher level interfaces first, and try to capture the "why" not just the "what". _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
