Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 16:57 +0200, Jan Zeleny wrote:
> Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 15:40 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > after several weeks of work and couple failed concepts, I'm sending
> > > rewritten memberof plugin with reference counter support. For now I'm
> > > just interested in concept ack, since the plugin has still some
> > > heisenbugs and isn't stable at all.
> > >
> > > The recompute task also isn't ready, I don't want to do it before
I
> > > have the concept acked and the rest of plugin stable.
> > >
> > > Many thanks in advance for any kind of review
> >
> > Jan one thing I see is that you removed the detailed comments about
> > each function operated and replaced them with nothing. Those comments
> > are fundamental to give a clue about how things are supposed to work.
> >
> > I think w/o detail comments that explain how the function are supposed
> > to work (ie the logic behind them) I will NACK any change.
>
> Don't worry, I have the intention to put them back. The reason I deleted
> them is because the functionality is very different in many places and
> therefore the comments need to be rewritten. Otherwise they would just
> be confusing. If you wish, I can write new comments before you do the
> review.
In order to do a meaningful review and understand what I need to look at
I need to know what was the logic you were trying to implement in the
code.
So yes comments should be written even before you start coding, then
once you find issues in the logic, while coding, go back and correct
them :)
Simo.
What can I tell you. You are indeed right, but after I scrapped the code of my
second attempt to rewrite this, I kinda gave up on the doc ;-)
I will provide one ASAP.
Jan