On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
>> > The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert
>> > looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm willing to
>> > do that work, but I need something concrete.
>>
>> It seems to me documentation is required to get into the source tree
>> before beta, and as we see with some other patches it's definitely the
>> case even with our newer procedures that some code gets in without its
>> documentation properly finished. I guess this amounts to the commiter
>> willing to fill up the docs later on.
>
> Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
> written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
I don't think we usually allow that for minor features. For big
things, it's probably more reasonable, but I would think that at least
some effort should be put in before commit. I'm new here, though, so
I might be all wet. But I wouldn't want to commit ten patches without
documentation and then have someone come back and say, OK, you
committed 'em, you write the docs. Or else no one comes back, and I
forget, and it never gets done.
...Robert
