On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:27:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > >> index 48aa4edfbd..b54684e807 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > >> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines > >> @@ -358,7 +358,11 @@ For C programs: > >> string_list for sorted string lists, a hash map (mapping struct > >> objects) named "struct decorate", amongst other things. > >> > >> - - When you come up with an API, document it. > >> + - When you come up with an API, document it. It used to be > >> + encouraged to do so in Documentation/technical/, and the birds-eye > >> + level overview may still be more suitable there, but detailed > >> + function-by-function level of documentation is done by comments in > >> + corresponding .h files these days. > >> > >> - The first #include in C files, except in platform specific compat/ > >> implementations, must be either "git-compat-util.h", "cache.h" or > > > > Thanks. I had not looked at this closely and was under the false > > impression that it was going in the other direction. Good to have it > > clarified. > > Heh, I knew people were in favor of one over the other but until > Peff chimed in to this thread, I didn't recall which one was > preferred, partly because I personally do not see a huge advantage > in using in-code comments as docs for programmers, and do not like > having to read them as in-code comments. > > If somebody wants to wordsmith the text and send in a patch with > good log message, please do so, as I myself am not sure if what I > wrote is the consensus position. It could be that they want to have > even birds-eye overview in the header files. Yes, I would say that everything should go into the header files. For the same reason that the function descriptions should go there: by being close to the thing being changed, it is more likely that authors will remember to adjust the documentation. It's not exactly literate programming, but it's a step in that direction. That's just my opinion, of course. I've been very happy so far with the documentation that we have transitioned. We talked a while ago about a script to extract the comments into a "just documentation" and build it as asciidoc, but I doubt I would use such a thing myself. I do agree in general that mentioning this in CodingGuidelines is a good idea. -Peff
