Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

[snip]

> My point is very simple: obviously, no merge should happen until the
> documentation *of what the things do exactly* is available.  So the
> proponents of the merge should at least:
> 
>   a) convert the docs to EMX format;
> 
>   b) have the list of implemented functions in one bulk;
> 
>   c) have the list of limitations (comparing to BSD) in one bulk;
> 
>   d) merge the description of limitations with entries for specific functions.
> 
> I do not see how one can discuss the merge without having lists of `b'
> and `c' before our eyes.  The steps `a' and `d' may be postponed
> indeed - at least if one can access the BSD manpages through a
> convenient URL (which I expect is available).

This makes sense. A patch should contain of

- a ChangeLog entry (who did what and when)
- a short description (why and what)
- the patch itself
- the updated docs (if necessary)
- the updated Makefile (if necessary; can also be done by someone else
  if the contributor of the patch doesn't know how to do it).


Bye,
Andreas