From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scripts: add checkpatch wrapper
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:57:42 +0100
Message-ID: <2182686.Rj6sEZi19Z@xps13>
References: <1445615606-3885-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <20151029134815.GA15580@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <CALwxeUsppOMZ8f_TgSbb0nSyVAZ7w9gH4RWiGmH9rfANyxqrrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F828DA5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:58:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wmll128 with SMTP id l128so25441157wml.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALwxeUsppOMZ8f_TgSbb0nSyVAZ7w9gH4RWiGmH9rfANyxqrrQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2015-10-29 14:54, David Marchand:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > I agree with both of you.
> > > I could suggest something but I'm afraid it will be difficult to have a
> > > consensus between a "quiet tool" and a "double check verbose tool".
> > > As it is a really critical piece of code, I think we should have a
> > meeting
> > > with a technical steering comittee ;)
> > > ... or we can add an option: -q or -v ? Debate is open :D
> > 
> > Yes, the whole future of the project could hinge on this decision :-)
> 
> Eheh :-)
> 
> > Ok, my suggestion is both!
> > 1) Have the default (in case of no errors), be a single line print out at
> > the end
> > stating number of files scanned
> > 2) If "-q" flag specified, skip this
> > 3) If "-v" flag specified, do current behaviour with a line per file.
> 
> Ok for me.

I'm really happy we can have a sane consensus to this difficult question,
with just few emails!
Thanks guys :)

PS: I will send a v2 when the easy task of RC1 integration will be done ;)