Skip to content

core: msg: update detail section on IPC#4475

Merged
kaspar030 merged 2 commits intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
miri64:doc/enh/msg
Dec 16, 2015
Merged

core: msg: update detail section on IPC#4475
kaspar030 merged 2 commits intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
miri64:doc/enh/msg

Conversation

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@miri64 miri64 commented Dec 14, 2015

Merges IPC section of old doxygen mainpage and detailed description and enhances it with some introductory text and examples.

Since I have uncrustify run as a pre-commit hook I included some style fixes too in an extra commit.

@miri64 miri64 added Area: doc Area: Documentation Area: core Area: RIOT kernel. Handle PRs marked with this with care! DocTF labels Dec 14, 2015
@miri64 miri64 added this to the Release 2015.12 milestone Dec 14, 2015
@OlegHahm OlegHahm mentioned this pull request Dec 14, 2015
24 tasks
@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 14, 2015

Arch users be advices that there is a bug in the most current doxygen version regarding the fenced code block syntax: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=759177

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

must must

@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

thx for taking the time to create examples!

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 14, 2015 via email

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 14, 2015

addressed comments

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"In this case, ..."

@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

minor comments, but from my side, you can squash.

@miri64 miri64 added the CI: ready for build If set, CI server will compile all applications for all available boards for the labeled PR label Dec 14, 2015
@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 14, 2015

Addressed comments and squashed immediately.

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 14, 2015

Does this need to ACKs due to it [edit]technically[/edit] being a core change?

@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

nah. The two line code change doesn't chang anything semantically, so one ACK is OK.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"is sent"

@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

found two more typos... fix if you feel like... IMHO we should skip travis on this (all but the static tests that check the docs).

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

response response

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about "Timing & messages"?

@PeterKietzmann
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks Martine for taking the initiative! No need to discuss on my proposed changes, adapt what you take as reasonable.

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 15, 2015

Addressed last batch of comments.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"for" too much I guess

@PeterKietzmann
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@authmillenon sorry being so picky, but now that you're on it ;-) ! IMO it's fine to squash

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 15, 2015

Addressed comments and squashed

@PeterKietzmann
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

ACK from my side. @kaspar030 please have a look and merge then!!!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why did you remove these parens?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's in the piggybacked uncrustify commit.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess we have to fix some settings there.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's one expression, so as far as I understand your parenthesis rules this should be right...

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(for e.g. two expressions the parenthesis would be kept around each)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"My" rule is basically always to have parens around any condition. Especially, I don't see any reason to remove them.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO ignore sounds good.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changed and squashed immediately.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thx

@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 16, 2015

I'm confused. @PeterKietzmann did you ACK or do you want @kaspar030 to ACK?

@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

IMHO its fine. Go!

kaspar030 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2015
core: msg: update detail section on IPC
@kaspar030 kaspar030 merged commit 1d22374 into RIOT-OS:master Dec 16, 2015
@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

miri64 commented Dec 16, 2015

Release version in #4496

@miri64 miri64 deleted the doc/enh/msg branch December 16, 2015 23:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Area: core Area: RIOT kernel. Handle PRs marked with this with care! Area: doc Area: Documentation CI: ready for build If set, CI server will compile all applications for all available boards for the labeled PR

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants