Re: The Harvesting process and the BFAV

[email protected] wrote:

>As always, I agree in principle but I will *always* repeat this:
>	Class comments and "top" method comments should be written when the
>code is written.
>
>That does not imply "perfectly-documented" - it rather implies
>"documented *at all*". And I strongly urge people to think about this -
>why is the image so poorly commented? Because SqC took exactly this
>approach - "better to getthe stuff in, who cares, we can write comments
>later". Surprise! There is no "later" when it comes to code comment.
>
>Now, after his little rant - I agree with you Marcus. I just want the
>little, little, little rule added: 	"Just make sure the damn code has
>proper code comments!"
>  
>

One thing I'm planning to work on (once I'm caught up with incorporating 
approved items) is a simple changeset-checker which any changeset 
intended for inclusion must "pass".  It could require that a changeset 
must have class comments in place, a preamble, and other basics.  The 
checker could be invoked when doing a "mail to list" in the change 
sorter, for example...

- Doug