Re: [PATCH 0/7] migrate api-strbuf.txt into strbuf.h
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 12, 2015, 23:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150212230513.GA21222@peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqh9uqpwe9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 03:01:18PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > This is a re-roll of this series: > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/260922/focus=261374 > > > > from early December to move the strbuf documentation into the header > > file. > > > > And of course the elephant in the room is the other dozen or more > > api-*.txt files. I'd propose to do this strbuf.h series (and possible > > follow-ons mentioned above) and stop there for a bit. That will let us > > form a more coherent opinion on whether we like this system in practice, > > how it ages as functions are changed and added, etc. That might affect > > how or if we end up converting other files. > > > > It does leave us in an inconsistent state (some documentation is in > > Documentation/technical, and some is in the headers), but I think that > > is largely where we're at today. IMHO this is a strict improvement > > because at least the logical chunk of "strbuf" is now in a single place. > > Is there a general concensus on the direction? > > I am inclined to merge this to 'next', if there is a general > understanding that we will try to make the headers _the_ single > source of truth of the API by (1) not adding to api-*.txt without > describing new things in the headers and (2) moving things from > api-*.txt to corresponding headers when clarifying, fixing or > updating the API.
I'm fine with that (unsurprisingly), but I would like to hear an "OK" from Jonathan before going ahead.
-Peff