pydoc bzrlib.FOO as a review step ?

Robert Collins robertc at robertcollins.net
Thu Oct 11 06:41:38 BST 2007


I was just looking at the pack format via pydoc and I realised that most
of our source files show simply a huge copyright statement in 'pydoc
bzrlib.THING', under the description field.

I think that is pretty pointless, and instead we should have something
useful. E.g. for bzrlib.repoformat.pack I want a description of packs as
repository formats, their distinct characteristics, tradeoffs etc. That
is the specifics for <this module>.

I'm wondering if its reasonable to assess this for all new
<not-test-script> modules?

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20071011/27356696/attachment.pgp 


More information about the bazaar mailing list