On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Just as a general note on this thread: if you're a packager and you > > have a genuine reason why people should be careful about touching your > > package, or follow some specific process when doing so, or there's > > something that people might think they should change but they > > shouldn't, there is already a pretty effective way of dealing with > > this: > > > > ** PUT A COMMENT IN THE SPEC FILE ** > > > > this is extremely easy to do, and extremely difficult for anyone who > > touches it to claim they didn't see. > > I know this thread is a bit old, but thought I'd add a note when I > checked my backlog and saw it. > > A comment in the code accompanying the change itself can also be > invaluable, especially for changes that should propagate upstream.I > cannot count the number of patches that have *nothing* in the patch > content, only in the comments preceding the patch itself. I'm > personally exhausted with people who refuse to document, whose API has > to be deduced from the code, and especially whose code could fit > *mutliple* workflows. And worse, when the API they think they're using > isn't the one they've actually written, and they get upset when you > don't code to this non-published API. > > That's cost me a job I rather liked. > > > Package builds in a community distro are really just like F/OSS code: > > you should assume other people are going to be looking at it and poking > > it and trying to do stuff with it, and any time it's doing something > > that isn't extremely obvious or diverges from the general conventions, > > it makes sense to comment it. > > Yes, lordie, please, "the code is the documentation" is an attitude > I've encountered far, far too often, and I consider it the sign of a > dangerous programmer. It's afraid it's a job security thing: by > refusing to document you protect your turf. > I'd like to add to this by pleading to *not* strip the comment section out of a patch/diff when you pull them from upstream/git/pull requests/etc. git format-patch is your friend in the Gitverse, and similar tools exist across all major SCM systems. Maybe it's because some people don't know about -p1 or something, but I've seen people strip and partially rewrite patches in the past so that they would apply. I was also guilty of this before I figured out how to use %patch and later learned of %autosetup/%autopatch, so I don't know if it's because people have issues with that or something else. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
