Re: API documentation requirements for next releases

[Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 18:18 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

> Thanks for sending this out Federico.  One minor nitpick is that I
> would personally prefer wording that doesn't connotate the release
> team deciding and imposing stuff but rather that reflects it being
> something the community agreed to (or didn't care enough to object
> to...).  Do others feel the same way?

Yeah, I misworded it.  Sorry about that.

> > For modules in the core platform [2], we'll require that new APIs and
> > other public interfaces have documentation.  This includes C functions,
> > configuration files, GConf keys, and anything that is not internal only.
> 
> This doesn't quite look like Murray's proposal to me[1] --
> configuration files, GConf keys, etc. didn't seem to be covered by my
> understanding.  Not sure how best to handle that.  Thoughts?

Effectively, GConf keys and configuration files become part of the
public interface --- we still need to handle lock-down.  So we need
documentation for them.  Or if a GConf key is private, it should also be
marked as such.

  Federico