6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +--------- 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ README.md | 1 + 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in the discussion in <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>. The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. Thanks, Laszlo Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> Laszlo Ersek (3): comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable assignments 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +--------- 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ README.md | 1 + 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) -- 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#46932): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/46932 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git > Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 > > HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: > - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 > - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html > - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html > > The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in the > discussion in <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>. > > The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. For 1 and 2, Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel tempted by Phil's input of using explicit macros (obviating the need for specific comment). I seem to recall back in the mists of time we considered something similar. Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount that option? Regards, Leif > Thanks, > Laszlo > > Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> > Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> > Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> > > Laszlo Ersek (3): > comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule > comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments > must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable assignments > > 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +--------- > 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ > README.md | 1 + > 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#46975): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/46975 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On 09/06/19 14:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git >> Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 >> >> HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html >> >> The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in the >> discussion in <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>. >> >> The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. > > For 1 and 2, > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > > For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel tempted by Phil's input > of using explicit macros (obviating the need for specific comment). > I seem to recall back in the mists of time we considered something > similar. Yes, I remember similarly. > Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount that option? Phil's current recommendation is what I would have preferred back then, but it was rejected, as far as I recall. If I remember correctly, most developers preferred naked NULLs / zeroes. I insisted on the comment as a fallback / compromise, so that we'd have at least some visual cue. I could be mis-remembering; we can restart that discussion if now the macros are preferred. Thanks, Laszlo > > Regards, > > Leif > >> Thanks, >> Laszlo >> >> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> >> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> >> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> >> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> >> >> Laszlo Ersek (3): >> comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule >> comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments >> must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable assignments >> >> 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +--------- >> 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> README.md | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47038): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47038 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 09/06/19 14:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git > >> Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 > >> > >> HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: > >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 > >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html > >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html > >> > >> The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in the > >> discussion in <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>. > >> > >> The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. > > > > For 1 and 2, > > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > > > > For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel tempted by Phil's input > > of using explicit macros (obviating the need for specific comment). > > I seem to recall back in the mists of time we considered something > > similar. > > Yes, I remember similarly. > > > Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount that option? > > Phil's current recommendation is what I would have preferred back then, > but it was rejected, as far as I recall. If I remember correctly, most > developers preferred naked NULLs / zeroes. I insisted on the comment as > a fallback / compromise, so that we'd have at least some visual cue. I'm not even sure I wasn't one of the people opposed to it then. But if I was, I would appear to have changed my mind. > I could be mis-remembering; we can restart that discussion if now the > macros are preferred. I would be all for that. However, I see no reason why we shouldn't document the current process in the meantime, so for 3/3 also: Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> Best Regards, Leif > Thanks, > Laszlo > > > > > Regards, > > > > Leif > > > >> Thanks, > >> Laszlo > >> > >> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> > >> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > >> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> > >> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> > >> > >> Laszlo Ersek (3): > >> comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule > >> comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments > >> must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable assignments > >> > >> 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +--------- > >> 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >> README.md | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > >> > >> -- > >> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 > >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47082): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47082 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 16:33 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 09/06/19 14:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > > > Repo: > > > > https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git > > > > Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 > > > > > > > > HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: > > > > - > > > > https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 > > > > - > > > > https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html > > > > - > > > > https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html > > > > > > > > The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in > > > > the > > > > discussion in < > > > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>;. > > > > > > > > The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. > > > > > > For 1 and 2, > > > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > > > > > > For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel tempted by Phil's > > > input > > > of using explicit macros (obviating the need for specific > > > comment). > > > I seem to recall back in the mists of time we considered > > > something > > > similar. > > > > Yes, I remember similarly. > > > > > Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount that option? > > > > Phil's current recommendation is what I would have preferred back > > then, > > but it was rejected, as far as I recall. If I remember correctly, > > most > > developers preferred naked NULLs / zeroes. I insisted on the > > comment as > > a fallback / compromise, so that we'd have at least some visual > > cue. > > I'm not even sure I wasn't one of the people opposed to it then. > But if I was, I would appear to have changed my mind. > > > I could be mis-remembering; we can restart that discussion if now > > the > > macros are preferred. > > I would be all for that. If my 2 cents are worth anything, that'd be preferred by some folks in my team too. Although something shorter like "UNINITIALIZED_INT/PTR" would be nicer, IMO. Both work of course. Richard > However, I see no reason why we shouldn't document the current > process > in the meantime, so for 3/3 also: > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > > Best Regards, > > Leif > > > Thanks, > > Laszlo > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Leif > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Laszlo > > > > > > > > Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> > > > > Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > > > > Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> > > > > > > > > Laszlo Ersek (3): > > > > comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule > > > > comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments > > > > must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable > > > > assignments > > > > > > > > 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +----- > > > > ---- > > > > 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > README.md | 1 + > > > > 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47083): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47083 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On 09/10/19 17:44, Ryszard Knop wrote: > On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 16:33 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> On 09/06/19 14:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>>> Repo: >>>>> https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git >>>>> Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 >>>>> >>>>> HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: >>>>> - >>>>> https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 >>>>> - >>>>> https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html >>>>> - >>>>> https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html >>>>> >>>>> The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in >>>>> the >>>>> discussion in < >>>>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>;. >>>>> >>>>> The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. >>>> >>>> For 1 and 2, >>>> Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel tempted by Phil's >>>> input >>>> of using explicit macros (obviating the need for specific >>>> comment). >>>> I seem to recall back in the mists of time we considered >>>> something >>>> similar. >>> >>> Yes, I remember similarly. >>> >>>> Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount that option? >>> >>> Phil's current recommendation is what I would have preferred back >>> then, >>> but it was rejected, as far as I recall. If I remember correctly, >>> most >>> developers preferred naked NULLs / zeroes. I insisted on the >>> comment as >>> a fallback / compromise, so that we'd have at least some visual >>> cue. >> >> I'm not even sure I wasn't one of the people opposed to it then. >> But if I was, I would appear to have changed my mind. >> >>> I could be mis-remembering; we can restart that discussion if now >>> the >>> macros are preferred. >> >> I would be all for that. > > If my 2 cents are worth anything, that'd be preferred by some folks in > my team too. Although something shorter like "UNINITIALIZED_INT/PTR" > would be nicer, IMO. Both work of course. Thanks everyone for the feedback thus far on this series. It looks like I could go ahead and push the patches, minimally for bringing the CCSS in closer sync with reality -- and then we could improve incrementally, for example with macros. But, before I push the set, I'd really like hear Mike's opinion too -- I vaguely recall he was active in the original discussion. I wouldn't like to back out the patches in case Mike rejected them retroactively. I believe Mike will have a bit of an email backlog to process ;) so I'll wait some more in this thread. Thanks! Laszlo >> However, I see no reason why we shouldn't document the current >> process >> in the meantime, so for 3/3 also: >> Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Leif >> >>> Thanks, >>> Laszlo >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Leif >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Laszlo >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> >>>>> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> >>>>> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> >>>>> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> >>>>> >>>>> Laszlo Ersek (3): >>>>> comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule >>>>> comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments >>>>> must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable >>>>> assignments >>>>> >>>>> 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +----- >>>>> ---- >>>>> 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> README.md | 1 + >>>>> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 >>>>> >> >> >> > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47135): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47135 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Series Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> I also agree that the macros would be cleaner, easy to review, and and fewer lines of code without the comment block. If I objected previously, then I have also changed my mind. I agree we can go ahead and push the series in its current form and continue the discussion on the macros. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:51 AM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; ryszard.knop@linux.intel.com; > leif.lindholm@linaro.org > Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; Kinney, Michael D > <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Rebecca Cran > <rebecca@bsdio.com>; Philippe Mathieu-Daude > <philmd@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH edk2-CCSS 0/3] Coding > Standards: add rule for documenting spurious variable > assignments > > On 09/10/19 17:44, Ryszard Knop wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 16:33 +0100, Leif Lindholm > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Laszlo > Ersek wrote: > >>> On 09/06/19 14:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo > Ersek wrote: > >>>>> Repo: > >>>>> https://github.com/lersek/edk2- > CCodingStandardsSpecification.git > >>>>> Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 > >>>>> > >>>>> HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: > >>>>> - > >>>>> https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the- > edk-ii-c-coding-st > >>>>> andards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 > >>>>> - > >>>>> https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the- > edk-ii-c-coding-st > >>>>> andards- > sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_softw > are > >>>>> /62_comments.html > >>>>> - > >>>>> https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the- > edk-ii-c-coding-st > >>>>> andards- > sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_softw > are > >>>>> /64_what_you_must_comment.html > >>>>> > >>>>> The first two patches are cleanups for things > that popped up in > >>>>> the discussion in < > >>>>> > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607>;. > >>>>> > >>>>> The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. > >>>> > >>>> For 1 and 2, > >>>> Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm > <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > >>>> > >>>> For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel > tempted by Phil's > >>>> input of using explicit macros (obviating the need > for specific > >>>> comment). > >>>> I seem to recall back in the mists of time we > considered something > >>>> similar. > >>> > >>> Yes, I remember similarly. > >>> > >>>> Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount > that option? > >>> > >>> Phil's current recommendation is what I would have > preferred back > >>> then, but it was rejected, as far as I recall. If I > remember > >>> correctly, most developers preferred naked NULLs / > zeroes. I > >>> insisted on the comment as a fallback / compromise, > so that we'd > >>> have at least some visual cue. > >> > >> I'm not even sure I wasn't one of the people opposed > to it then. > >> But if I was, I would appear to have changed my > mind. > >> > >>> I could be mis-remembering; we can restart that > discussion if now > >>> the macros are preferred. > >> > >> I would be all for that. > > > > If my 2 cents are worth anything, that'd be preferred > by some folks in > > my team too. Although something shorter like > "UNINITIALIZED_INT/PTR" > > would be nicer, IMO. Both work of course. > > Thanks everyone for the feedback thus far on this > series. It looks like I could go ahead and push the > patches, minimally for bringing the CCSS in closer sync > with reality -- and then we could improve > incrementally, for example with macros. > > But, before I push the set, I'd really like hear Mike's > opinion too -- I vaguely recall he was active in the > original discussion. I wouldn't like to back out the > patches in case Mike rejected them retroactively. > > I believe Mike will have a bit of an email backlog to > process ;) so I'll wait some more in this thread. > > Thanks! > Laszlo > > >> However, I see no reason why we shouldn't document > the current > >> process in the meantime, so for 3/3 also: > >> Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm > <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Leif > >> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Laszlo > >>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Leif > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Laszlo > >>>>> > >>>>> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com> > >>>>> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> > >>>>> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> > >>>>> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> Laszlo Ersek (3): > >>>>> comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule > >>>>> comments: restrict and clarify applicability of > "/*" comments > >>>>> must comment: add rule for documenting spurious > variable > >>>>> assignments > >>>>> > >>>>> 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md > | 20 +----- > >>>>> ---- > >>>>> > 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 > >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>> README.md > | 1 + > >>>>> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 > deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 > >>>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47384): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47384 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On 09/17/19 21:10, Michael D Kinney wrote: > Series Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> > > I also agree that the macros would be cleaner, easy to review, and > and fewer lines of code without the comment block. If I objected > previously, then I have also changed my mind. I agree we can go > ahead and push the series in its current form and continue the > discussion on the macros. Thank you all for the help, I've pushed the series: d096859f15b9..f5ad35ec2c6d Cheers, Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47475): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47475 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33157541/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.