Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>]

 > From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>
 > 
 > Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 > > I still think we should give high priority to some of the issues
 > > raised like regressions and documentation, but these don't have to be
 > > blockers as long as they is a commitment to address them.  (Again, my
 > > mental model is the new C++ parser.)
 > 
 > Documentation desperately needs to be considered, but it won't likely 
 > receive a priority so long as it is not funded by someone.
 > 
 > Documentating isn't as fun as coding. The same holds true for debugging 
 > and testing; they just aren't very sexy in comparison to forging new code.
 > 
 > Some people recognize this; one of my primary clients is paying me to 
 > document a free software project's algorithms and design. That project, 
 > however, is not GCC. Perhaps someone *is* being funded to write GCC 
 > documentation; I don't know who they are, though, or what their mandate 
 > might be.

Believe me, I am aware of the lack of sexiness of documentation.
Nevertheless IMHO we shouldn't throw up our hands and give up.

My understanding is that the tree-ssa project is actually very well
funded given the paid individuals dedicated to it for so long.  It
would seem simple good project management to include some
documentation hours in there somewhere.

Furthermore, the sexiness argument usually applies to more junior
programmers who don't understand the value of docs.  Even if we can't
find any paid hours to spend on this, I believe many of the developers
working on tree-ssa are seasoned enough to volunteer for this "dull"
task given they had the vision to begin this work in the first place.
(At least, that is my hope.)

This is certainly the right time to document the new infrastructure.

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu