Audit the buttons code
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
Tue Oct 5 08:28:32 CDT 2004
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:18:50AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Such comments do suffer from another problem. They tend to fall out of
> date. For that reason alone I'm not sure this comment is a good idea.
> Otherwise, we get a future commit that changes something, but neglects
> to update the comment accordingly, and the comment turns useless or even
> dangerous. Maybe if we change that to contain the date or the CVS
> version number of the file that was audited....
This is not a problem for these comments because:
-- each control is implemented in one, and only one file
-- each control has it's own independent audit
-- the comment is at the top of the file, where it's most visible
-- from the previous 3 points, it's very difficult to work on
any control without stumbling upon it.
-- it includes the exact version of the documentation, so when new
documentation is released, we can compute the delta
-- it includes the exact date when the audit took place, so we
can compute deltas on the control side
-- they are not open ended. That is, they list all the missing features,
and such, if people forget to update them, 99% of the time this simply
means they forgot to *delete* something. This is much less of a problem
then not adding. It can easily get fixed when someone does a new audit,
or wants to reimplement that feature.
-- we had them for more then 2 years now, and there wasn't a single instance
when people forgot to update them. Which means that the theory detailed
this far actually works in practice.
-- I've been closely watching patches againt controls myself (along with a
few other people, it seems), so we have a pretty good safety net.
More information about the wine-devel