[epiar-devel] Top Header Comments: Do we need them?

[Matthew Zweig]

We should definitely have the header comments.  Doxygen makes these headers really useful, and it's a convenient way to give at-a-glance information to developers that are looking for a particular feature.

I don't know if the Modified date is really helpful though.  The only reason I can think of to include them is if/when we decide to distribute code as a tarball rather than a git clone.  That way people without access to the history could still differentiate static files from actively developed files.

I think that we should either remove the Modified line altogether, or sync them with the git timestamp just before a release candidate.  We definitely do need to have a code-cleanup sweep just prior to any release to fix naming conventions, doxygen commenting, proper white-spacing, etc (non-functional changes).

~Matt

On Dec 27, 2009, at 2:17 AM, Chris Walton wrote:

> I wouldn't  mind if we simply didn't care. I'll pretty much perpetually forget those too :)
> 
> -- Chris
> 
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Christopher Thielen <chris at epiar.net> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>        I'm in the habit of not updating the top header comments:
> 
> /**\file                        ui.cpp
>  * \author                      Chris Thielen (chris at luethy.net)
>  * \date                        Created: Unknown (2006?)
>  * \date                        Modified: Sunday, November 22, 2009
>  * \brief
>  * \details
>  */
> 
> Am I just being lazy or do we really need them?
> 
> - Chris
> _______________________________________________
> epiar-devel mailing list
> epiar-devel at epiar.net
> http://epiar.net/mailman/listinfo/epiar-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> epiar-devel mailing list
> epiar-devel at epiar.net
> http://epiar.net/mailman/listinfo/epiar-devel