From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 2B346272E3 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F90Y57CvRQ56 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id D98F02728F for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:43:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] Extract 'coll' library from 'core' References: <20190226122357.GF5592@chai> <85771fa1-b999-e3d0-3975-44e8a3d371cd@tarantool.org> <20190226125525.GG5592@chai> <20190226131757.GA20707@chai> From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:43:08 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190226131757.GA20707@chai> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Konstantin Osipov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org On 26/02/2019 16:17, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > * Vladislav Shpilevoy [19/02/26 16:12]: >> Usually we either do not write readme at all, or write it in >> the main header, describing the main functionality. And it is >> never about build details, dependencies, and limitations. >> >> All limitations are usually described with corresponding enum >> values and function comments. > > I'd say it's mostly sloppiness: > > kostja@chai ~/work/tarantool/src/lib > % ls */README* > msgpuck/README.md salad/README small/README.md msgpuck and small are separate repositories, with their own rules. Msgpuck is even a separate project, not just repo. And even here you can see, that small README does not speak about build and dependencies. It just speaks the same, what should be written as function comments. What, in fact, would be much more useful. Talking of salad - it is ridiculous, howling shame, and profanation. Just open that useless 'readme' and you will see, that it consists of one single line: "salad - Some ALgorithms And Data structures" That. Is. All. Readme just for readme. You can name my opinion whatever you want - sloppiness, or anything else, showing me that trumpery composed of empty or not existing READMEs, but the fact is that we really never write them, unfortunately, as a obligatory practice. As an opposite to your 'readme's above I can show you much more not described libs: - small/rlist (part of small, by the way, but not described in small/README); - small/lf_fifo (the same) - small/rb (the same) - all the salad/* libs (I do not count empty README as a readme) - lib/bit - lib/uri - src/curl - src/histogram - src/httpc - src/rmean ... I can continue longer, but do not see any sense in it. Libs, having their readme inside the header, as a special paragraph or as a part of main struct comment: - lsregion - quota_lessor - json - lib/bit - lib/bitset - lib/coll (yes, touched in this patchset, and it has a description of struct coll and functions in the header) > > > -- > Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 > http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov >