#23: Use Doxygen-style comments ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: uwe | Owner: somebody Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: Cosmetic fixes Component: coreboot | Version: Resolution: fixed | Keywords: Dependencies: | Patchstatus: there is no patch ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Changes (by stepan):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed
Comment:
This is part of the documentation chapter of the coding guidelines. No changes to the ticket in a year, and it seems to be a place holder. Closing it for now.
Hi,
coreboot wrote:
#85: fix milli/mega and 1000/1024 ambiguities
- status: new => closed
- resolution: => invalid
no news in 20 months. closing for now
coreboot wrote:
#23: Use Doxygen-style comments
- status: new => closed
- resolution: => fixed
This is part of the documentation chapter of the coding guidelines. No changes to the ticket in a year, and it seems to be a place holder. Closing it for now.
Closing tickets solely because of lack of activity in the tracker undermines the ticket status property IMO, and I think such status changes should be avoided.
Just because an issue has not been fixed in a long time that does not mean that we never want to fix it, right? It also does not make the original issue invalid.
I think ticket status is one of the more important, if not the most important, features in trac but it's only good if actually used to track reality. :)
Also, closing tickets based on inactivity in the tracker makes little sense when there is almost zero activity in the tracker anyway. By extension we should then close all tickets, which in turn means that we can not use a tracker at all. I don't agree with that at all. I think trac is very good and it can be most useful. I don't want to be without it for flashrom and msrtool.
Maybe one reason why noone uses trac is that their tickets end up being closed without receiving much discussion? It's just a guess, but at least for #85 I certainly consider it important for us to get that small detail right. It can be thought of as polish and one might say that polish is minor, but in fact it is quite important also for a firmware product.
//Peter
On 17.03.2009 0:41 Uhr, Peter Stuge wrote:
Hi,
coreboot wrote:
#85: fix milli/mega and 1000/1024 ambiguities
- status: new => closed
- resolution: => invalid
no news in 20 months. closing for now
coreboot wrote:
#23: Use Doxygen-style comments
- status: new => closed
- resolution: => fixed
This is part of the documentation chapter of the coding guidelines. No changes to the ticket in a year, and it seems to be a place holder. Closing it for now.
Closing tickets solely because of lack of activity in the tracker undermines the ticket status property IMO, and I think such status changes should be avoided.
Yes, I totally agree. I changed the tickets not solely because of the lack of status, but because they were never real tickets.
"Use Doxygen style comments" is something that belongs (and is) in the developers guideline, but it's not a ticket.
Stefan
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
#85: fix milli/mega and 1000/1024 ambiguities
#23: Use Doxygen-style comments
Closing tickets solely because of lack of activity in the tracker undermines the ticket status property IMO, and I think such status changes should be avoided.
Yes, I totally agree. I changed the tickets not solely because of the lack of status, but because they were never real tickets.
Oh - I see! You didn't write that in the comments so I assumed.
Sorry! :\
"Use Doxygen style comments" is something that belongs (and is) in the developers guideline, but it's not a ticket.
It depends.. If our goal is to really have doxygen throughout, I think a ticket makes good sense as long as there is some code without doxygen - even though it is written in guidelines.
If we are more lax about wanting doxygen I agree that closing the ticket as invalid makes sense. A comment at the same time as status change could probably help clear up some confusion in that case.
Similarly, I think debug output clarity is an important issue, at the very least before the "Going mainstream" milestone.
I'd like to reopen 85, but there's no point if it will get closed again, so I'm hoping you see my point. :)
Thanks for clarification and good discussion!
//Peter
-
coreboot -
Peter Stuge -
Stefan Reinauer