From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] checkpatch: putting the && or || on the wrong line
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:38:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1294349918.12561.142.camel@Joe-Laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m37hehloon.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 22:14 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:
> >> >> Sure, standardization is a good thing - to a certain point.
> >> >> We've passed this point long ago.
> > Right. It's all exactly the same.
> > We agree. Cites aren't necessary.
> People complained on lkml and other lists that the CodingStyle /
> checkpatch went way too far many times. So the evidence is there, in the
> list archives, and I guess even now you're getting feedback on this.
People complain, that's a fact.
> OTOH you failed to show evidence that super-strict standardization
> benefits anyone.
I don't need to.
If you don't agree with the assertion,
facts likely won't change your mind.
You'll more likely dispute the facts.
Look up this paper if you care to though:
Evaluating the Relation Between Coding
Standard Violations and Faults Within and
Across Software Versions
Cathal Boogerd and Leon Moonen
http://swerl.tudelft.nl/twiki/pub/Main/TechnicalReports/TUD-SERG-2009-008.pdf
RQ2 Are files or modules with a higher violation
density more fault-prone?
This holds for 10 rules in the standard, with some reserva-
tions. There is no reliable prediction for files without ac-
tive development (no changes) nor for files without viola-
tions. Also, the observed relation becomes less pronounced
in time, as the number of registered open faults decreases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-06 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-04 5:59 [patch] checkpatch: putting the && or || on the wrong line Dan Carpenter
2011-01-04 6:58 ` Joe Perches
2011-01-04 9:24 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-01-05 10:24 ` Martin Knoblauch
2011-01-04 16:38 ` J. Bruce Fields
2011-01-04 16:44 ` Samuel Thibault
2011-01-04 17:07 ` Joe Perches
2011-01-05 17:38 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2011-01-05 17:45 ` Joe Perches
2011-01-06 12:11 ` Martin Knoblauch
2011-01-06 17:43 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-06 12:32 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2011-01-06 17:57 ` Joe Perches
2011-01-06 20:23 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2011-01-06 21:02 ` Joe Perches
2011-01-06 21:14 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2011-01-06 21:38 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2011-01-07 17:12 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-08 13:42 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2011-01-08 17:12 ` Joe Perches
2011-01-06 11:55 ` Martin Knoblauch
2011-01-06 12:38 ` Krzysztof Halasa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1294349918.12561.142.camel@Joe-Laptop \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=khc@pm.waw.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox