From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23098 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 17:37:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23091 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 17:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 17:37:34 -0000 Received: from gnat.com (hoosic.gnat.com [205.232.38.102]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00C6F2DAB; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:37:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400972E0.5010800@gnat.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Robert Ladd Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , gcc mailing list Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline References: <1074298740.3147.79.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <200401170151.i0H1pjEn020723@caip.rutgers.edu> <1074310588.3147.153.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <200401171704.i0HH4WWn015521@caip.rutgers.edu> <40096DA9.9010905@coyotegulch.com> In-Reply-To: <40096DA9.9010905@coyotegulch.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01082.txt.bz2 Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Documentation desperately needs to be considered, but it won't likely > receive a priority so long as it is not funded by someone. I don't see why documentation should be any more of an issue than coding > Documentating isn't as fun as coding. Documentation is *part* of coding, a fundamental and important part. My view is that no code should ever be accepted for inclusion unless it is fully documented. If people have fun doing a half baked job of coding without properly documention, that's fine, but I do not find it a useful contribution to *any* project, regardless of licensing or style of development. I have not looked at the tree-ssa code in detail. I will try to do so in the near future. But in general terms, I would be opposed to its inclusion if the documentation is incomplete or inadequate. > 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. The fact that something is Free Software should never be an excuse for lack of documentation. To me, a good programmer takes pride in the excellence of documentation as an integral part of the code.