From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20498 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2007 23:39:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 20488 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2007 23:39:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:38:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC8A2A9AFD; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ZId7xoXJlt4i; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9002A9AF5; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D75A8E7B54; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:39:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Robert Dewar Cc: Jim Blandy , Markus Deuling , Eli Zaretskii , pkoning@equallogic.com, eager@eagercon.com, stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What's an annex? stratum? Message-ID: <20070626234056.GZ3706@adacore.com> References: <468009EA.4040504@eagercon.com> <18048.5444.903092.843811@pkoning.equallogic.com> <20070625193135.GA6391@caradoc.them.org> <4680199F.7020906@adacore.com> <46815BC2.9070204@de.ibm.com> <4681A073.5040209@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4681A073.5040209@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 > Documentation is not about beauty, though some attention to readability > and nice presentation is certainly worth while. If you follow a policy > of implement now -- document never, you eventually get a mess in which > you find it unreasonably hard to do anything. I find it a bit amazing > for *anyone* to argue in favor of inadequate documentation! I think you misunderstood what Jim was saying. Jim documents his code very well, and gives examples of that. What he says is that it's a lot easier to maintain doco besides the associated code itself rather than maintain a separate document (which is pretty much what you argued for). Given the amount of resources that we have, this is probably the most pragmatic approach to keeping our code documented. -- Joel