kdelibs API documentation (was Re: Moving ThreadWeaver to kdelibs)

[Benjamin Meyer]

> What _is_ relevant is how we arrived at the apidox policy

I was annoyed that there wasn't one when fixing docs, so I jotted down some 
notes, read other documentation policies and posted it to the list.  After 
some debate and refinement I put it in the svn (and thus up online).

> , how (if) it is enforced

Well going on hope didn't work.  My *real* goal was that developers would 
comply to it before adding new classes to libs, but that hasn't happened.  
Feel free to suggest any ideas.  Reverting commits even if it breaks svn 
somewhere else?

> , and what it takes to change such a policy.

Posting to core-devel, getting general agreement?

> If the policy is  
> 'random rules someone pulled out of his arse', then changing it is easy but
> it's not exactly relevant; if the policy is something that was decided upon
> in a more reputable fashion, then we can't just go about adding stuff to it
> (otherwise I would have banned @ref and the use of # long ago).

-Benjamin Meyer

-- 
aka icefox
Public Key: http://www.icefox.net/public_key.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050914/9d8fc199/attachment.sig>