<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>That seems like a reasonable rule to me! We should strive to land code with documentation in the first place.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>--Patrick<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:kent@caspia.com">R Kent James</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, June 10, 2016 5:12 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Documentation fix patches</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>As I discuss various issues in bugs, I continually notice the lack of</p><p class=MsoNormal>documentation in so much of our internal code (Mozilla culture in</p><p class=MsoNormal>general does not support good code documentation per my standards, but</p><p class=MsoNormal>that is another issue. New code is routinely landed with no description</p><p class=MsoNormal>of the purpose of files or modules, for example).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Might I propose a new review rule, applying at least for anything under</p><p class=MsoNormal>c-c/mailnews and perhaps under other directories? That would be to allow</p><p class=MsoNormal>anyone who is a module owner or peer under c-c to provide a</p><p class=MsoNormal>documentation-only patch without review, landed with DONTBUILD? That way</p><p class=MsoNormal>we could reduce the friction in improving documentation. I actually</p><p class=MsoNormal>think there is a similar rule in existence in m-c Does anyone know that</p><p class=MsoNormal>rule and what is entered for r= or a= to allow it?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>:rkent</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>tb-planning mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>tb-planning@mozilla.org</p><p class=MsoNormal>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>