Doxygen Updates Janitor Work

* Whitespace, doc-blocks, spelling, case, missing and incorrect tags.
* Add cleanup to Makefile for the Doxygen configuration update
* Start updating Doxygen configuration for cleaner output
* Enable inclusion of configuration files into documentation
* remove mantisworkflow...
* update documentation README
* Add markup to Tilghman's email and talk with him about updating his email, he knows...
* no code changes on this commit other than the mentioned Makefile change

(issue ASTERISK-20259)


git-svn-id: https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk@373384 65c4cc65-6c06-0410-ace0-fbb531ad65f3

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 206 deletions

diff --git a/include/asterisk/doxygen/mantisworkflow.h b/include/asterisk/doxygen/mantisworkflow.h
deleted file mode 100644
index cb5f341bf..000000000
--- a/include/asterisk/doxygen/mantisworkflow.h
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,206 +0,0 @@
-/*
- * Asterisk -- An open source telephony toolkit.
- *
- * Copyright (C) 1999 - 2009, Digium, Inc.
- *
- * See http://www.asterisk.org for more information about
- * the Asterisk project. Please do not directly contact
- * any of the maintainers of this project for assistance;
- * the project provides a web site, mailing lists and IRC
- * channels for your use.
- *
- * This program is free software, distributed under the terms of
- * the GNU General Public License Version 2. See the LICENSE file
- * at the top of the source tree.
- */
-
-/*!
- * \file
- */
-
-/*!
- * \page MantisWorkflow Workflow Guidelines for Asterisk Open Source Issue Tracker
- *
- * \AsteriskTrunkWarning
- *
- * <hr>
- * \section WorkflowDescription Description of the Issue Tracker Workflow
- * 
- * (This document is most beneficial for Asterisk bug marshals, however it is good
- * reading for anyone who may be filing issues or wondering how the Asterisk Open
- * Source project moves issues through from filing to completion.)
- * 
- * The workflow in the issue tracker should be handled in the following way:
- * 
- * -# A bug is reported and is automatically placed in the 'New' status.
- * -# The Bug Marshall team should go through bugs in the 'New' status to determine 
- *    whether the report is valid (not a duplicate, hasn't already been fixed, not 
- *    a Digium tech support issue, etc.).  Invalid reports should be set to 
- *    'Closed' with the appropriate resolution set. Categories and descriptions 
- *    should be corrected at this point.[Note1]\n
- *    Issues should also have enough information for a developer to either 
- *    reproduce the issue or determine where an issue exists (or both). If this is 
- *    not the case then the issue should be moved to 'Feedback' prior to moving 
- *    forward in the workflow.
- * -# The next step is to determine whether the report is about a bug or a 
- *    submission of a new feature:
- *       -# BUG: A bug should be moved into the status 'Acknowledged' if enough
- *          information has been provided by the reporter to either reproduce the
- *          issue or clearly see where an issue may lie. The bug may also be
- *          assigned to a developer for the creation of the initial patch, or
- *          review of the issue.\n
- *          Once a patch has been created for the issue and attached, the issue can
- *          then be moved to the 'Confirmed' status. At this point, initial code 
- *          review and discussion about the patch will take place. Once an adequate
- *          amount of support for the implementation of the patch is acquired, then
- *          the bug can be moved to the 'Ready for Testing' status for wider 
- *          testing by the community. After the testing phase is complete and it
- *          appears the issue is resolved, the patch can be committed by a 
- *          developer and closed.
- *       -# FEATURE: As new features should be filed with a patch, it can be 
- *          immediately moved to the 'confirmed' status, making it ready for basic
- *          formatting and code review. From there any changes to style or feel of
- *          the patch based on feedback from the community can be discussed, and
- *          changes to the patch made. It can then be moved forward to the 'Ready 
- *          for Testing' status. Once the feature has been merged, or a decision
- *          has been made that it will not be merged, the issue should be taken to 
- *          'Closed' with the appropriate resolution.[Note2]
- * -# If at any point in the workflow, an issue requires feedback from the original
- *    poster of the issue, the status should be changed to 'Feedback'.  Once the 
- *    required information has been provided, it should be placed back in the
- *    appropriate point of the workflow.
- * -# If at any point in the workflow, a developer or bug marshal would like to 
- *    take responsibility for doing the work that is necessary to progress an 
- *    issue, the status can be changed to 'Assigned'. At that point the developer
- *    assigned to the issue will be responsible for moving the issue to completion.
- * 
- * \section WorkflowSummary Workflow Summary
- * 
- * The following is a list of valid statuses and what they mean to the work flow.
- *
- * \subsection New New
- *    This issue is awaiting review by bug marshals.  Categorization and summaries
- *    should be fixed as appropriate.
- * 
- * \subsection Feedback
- *    This issue requires feedback from the poster of the issue before any
- *    additional progress in the workflow can be made. This may include providing
- *    additional debugging information, or a backtrace with DONT_OPTIMIZE enabled,
- *    for example. (See the doc/HOWTO_collect_debug_information.txt file in your
- *    Asterisk source.)
- * 
- * \subsection Acknowledged
- *    This is a submitted bug which has no patch associated with it, but appears
- *    to be a valid bug based on the description and provided debugging
- *    information.
- * 
- * \subsection Confirmed
- *    The patch associated with this issue requires initial formatting and code
- *    review, and may have some initial testing done. It is waiting for a 
- *    developer to confirm the patch will no longer need large changes made to it,
- *    and is ready for wider testing from the community. This stage is used for
- *    discussing the feel and style of a patch, in addition to the coding style
- *    utilized.
- * 
- * \subsection Ready For Testing
- *    This is an issue which has a patch that is waiting for testing feedback from
- *    the community after it has been deemed to no longer need larger changes.
- * 
- * \subsection Assigned
- *    A developer or bug marshal has taken responsibility for taking the necessary
- *    steps to move forward in the workflow.  Once the issue is ready to be
- *    reviewed and feedback provided, it should be placed back into the
- *    appropriate place of the workflow.
- * 
- * \subsection Resolved
- *    A resolution for this issue has been reached.  This issue should immediately
- *    be Closed.
- * 
- * \subsection Closed
- *    No further action is necessary for this issue.
- * 
- * \section SeverityLevels Severity Levels
- * 
- * Severity levels generally represent the number of users who are potentially
- * affected by the reported issue. 
- * 
- * \subsection Feature Feature
- *    This issue is a new feature and will only be committed to Asterisk trunk.
- *    Asterisk trunk is where future branches will be created and thus this
- *    feature will only be found in future branches of Asterisk and not merged
- *    into existing branches. (See Release Branch Commit Policy below.)
- * 
- * \subsection Trivial Trivial
- *    A trivial issue is something that either affects an insignificant number of
- *    Asterisk users, or is a minimally invasive change that does not affect
- *    functionality.
- * 
- * \subsection Text Text
- *    A text issue is typically something like a spelling fix, a clarifying of a
- *    debugging or verbose message, or changes to documentation.
- * 
- * \subsection Tweak Tweak
- *    A tweak to the code the has the potential to either make code clearer to
- *    read, or a change that could speed up processing in certain circumstances.
- *    These changes are typically only a couple of lines.
- * 
- * \subsection Minor Minor
- *    An issue that does not affect a large number of Asterisk users, but not an
- *    insignificant number. The number of lines of code and development effort to
- *    resolve this issue could be non-trivial.
- * 
- * \subsection Major Major
- *    As issue that affects the majority of Asterisk users. The number of lines of
- *    code and development effort required to resolve this issue could be
- *    non-trivial.
- * 
- * \subsection Crash Crash
- *    An issue marked as a Crash is something that would cause Asterisk to be
- *    unusable for a majority of Asterisk users and is an issue that causes a
- *    deadlock or crash of the Asterisk process.
- * 
- * \subsection Block Block
- *    A blocking issue is an issue that must be resolved before the next release
- *    of Asterisk as would affect a significant number of Asterisk users, or could
- *    be a highly visible regression. A severity of block should only be set by
- *    Asterisk bug marshals at their discretion.
- * 
- *        *** USERS SHOULD NOT FILE ISSUES WITH A SEVERITY OF BLOCK ***
- * 
- * \section PriorityLevels Priority Levels
- *
- * Currently, the following priority levels are listed on the issue tracker:
- * - None
- * - Low
- * - Normal
- * - High
- * - Urgent
- * - Immediate
- *
- * However, at this time they are not utilized and all new issue should have a priority of 'Normal'.
- *
- * \section Notes Notes
- * 
- * -# Using the "Need Triage" filter is useful for finding these issues quickly.
- * -# The issue tracker now has the ability to monitor the commits list, and if
- *    the commit message contains something like, "(Closes issue #9999)", the bug
- *    will be automatically closed.\n
- *    See http://www.asterisk.org/doxygen/trunk/CommitMessages.html for more
- *    information on commit messages.
- * 
- * \section ReleaseBranchCommitPolicy Release Branch Commit Policy
- * 
- * The code in the release branches should be changed as little as possible.  The 
- * only time the release branches will be changed is to fix a bug.  New features 
- * will never be included in the release branch unless a special exception is made
- * by the release branch maintainers.
- * 
- * Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a patch is considered to fix a 
- * bug or if it is a new feature.  Patches that are considered code cleanup, or to 
- * improve performance, are NOT to be included in the release branches. Performance
- * issues will only be considered for the release branch if they are considered 
- * significant, and should be approved by the maintainers.
- * 
- * If there is ever a question about what should be included in the release branch,
- * the maintainers should be allowed to make the decision.
- */