Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:25:17PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > 
> > Ordering include based on length of line minimize the
> > risk of merge conflicts.
> > If people just add new includes in the bottom of the list you
> > are certain that a merge conflit happens.
> > 
> > This scheme is starting to be used in several places with the
> > primary advocates being David Miller and Ingo.
> > 
> > It is getting used both for includes _and_ for local variables.
> > 
> 
> Personally I'd prefer alphabetic order, sorting based on length isn't a
> complete ordering.  Nearly all editors can sort alphabetically at the
> push of a key.

*shrug*

FWIW, the real problem is that we have far too many includes in a typical
file; the ordering wouldn't matter if there would be 4-5 #include in
foo.c.  Inventing elaborate policies to cope with that crap instead of
addressing the root cause (namely, cut'n'paste approach to includes) is
rather pointless...