On 11/11/20 5:51 pm, Sebastian Huber 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.
Sounds great to me. If you think the links are fine and are not a distraction then I am also fine with them being there. As an aside, are the links from one location in rtems-central? The link itself may need to be changed and the sources regenerated. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
