-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/12/09 00:16, James Yonan wrote: >> >> However, it _could_ be a requirement that all patches be submitted >> with documentation. If not, I can't see how you'd want to >> include any functional changes without also having documentation >> so somebody else would have to be gotten to document the patch. >> This is obviously up to whomever reviews the patches. >>
I would strongly recommend good commit comments from the persons providing patches. This should contain a description of what is changed and why. If the change is complex, it should also describe how the patch fixes the issue. On smaller or simpler patcher, this might usually be enough. But on bigger changes, especially with more code being added to OpenVPN, the code itself should also have good and descriptive comments as well. What is obvious for the developer writing the patch in that moment, might not be so obvious for a different developer a few years later on. kind regards, David Sommerseth -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkskCncACgkQDC186MBRfrr13wCghI5YuFCy3ihi7akjxm/1k4wi QzgAoJgRMSizsfvhw76TKBCI6PI6/M/q =DOcZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
