public inbox for kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.



  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