I checked the content of the 11 patches, I just noticed one inconsistency in 11/11.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:51 PM Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > On 11/11/2020 01:18, Chris Johns wrote: > > > On 10/11/20 5:41 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >> On 10/11/2020 00:05, Chris Johns wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/11/20 1:49 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >>>> This patch set replaces some hand written header files of the Classic > >>>> API with header files generated from specification items. The main > >>>> parts are the Event Manager and the Partition Manager. The patches for > >>>> the RTEMS Classic API Guide of these two managers is available here: > >>>> > >>>> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063122.html > >>>> > >>>> I tried to follow the updated Doxygen guidelines: > >>>> > >>>> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063119.html > >>>> > >>>> Sebastian Huber (11): > >>>> rtems: Include missing header file > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/config.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/config.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/status.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/modes.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/options.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/types.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/attr.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/event.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/part.h> > >>>> rtems: Generate <rtems/score/basedefs.h> > >>> Do these files need something that indicates they are generated and part > >>> of the > >>> RTEMS Quality Process (RQP?)? > >>> > >>> I could not see anything. > >> All the generated files have the standard header and the generated by > >> comments > >> or do you mean something else? > > I was thinking of something like the recent change to the documentation > > source: > > > > /* > > * This file is part of the RTEMS quality process and was automatically > > * generated. If you find something that needs to be fixed or changed > > * please post a report or patch to an RTEMS mailing list or raise a bug > > * report. > > */ > > > > I do not think we need the links as someone wanting to change an API header > > file > > should know there are mailing lists and a bug reporting system. > I would keep the links. It is not a lot of text. The header files > contain the directive documentation which is also in the manuals. So, > every user reviewing the API header file has a chance to fix typos, > suggest a better wording, or otherwise improve the documentation. > > -- > embedded brains GmbH > Sebastian HUBER > Dornierstr. 4 > 82178 Puchheim > Germany > email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16 > Fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 > PGP: Public key available on request. > > embedded brains GmbH > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München > Registernummer: HRB 157899 > Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler > Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier: > https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
