Documentation fix patches

Matt Harris at
Fri Jun 10 22:49:21 UTC 2016

On 6/11/2016 6:42 AM, R Kent James wrote:

While I am no developer, it has been a constant source of irritation to 
me that the source so lacks documentation that  it is very difficult to 
get a handle on what actually goes on.  This is particularly from my 
perspective,but without documentation it is difficult to determine if an 
action is a bug or intended.  What is the expected outcome is something 
I would like to see.  So anything that makes the code less daunting may 
also see more contributors. I am all for it.

>    Anything that will make itAs I discuss various issues in bugs, I continually notice the lack of
> documentation in so much of our internal code (Mozilla culture in
> general does not support good code documentation per my standards, but
> that is another issue. New code is routinely landed with no description
> of the purpose of files or modules, for example).
> Might I propose a new review rule, applying at least for anything under
> c-c/mailnews and perhaps under other directories? That would be to allow
> anyone who is a module owner or peer under c-c to provide a
> documentation-only patch without review, landed with DONTBUILD? That way
> we could reduce the friction in improving documentation. I actually
> think there is a similar rule in existence in m-c  Does anyone know that
> rule and what is entered for r= or a= to allow it?
> :rkent
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at

“Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.” /― Friedrich 
von Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3849 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list