From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754097Ab1AFVil (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:38:41 -0500 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:3004 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753908Ab1AFVij (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:38:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] checkpatch: putting the && or || on the wrong line From: Joe Perches To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20110104055900.GA5062@bicker> <20110104163836.GA30317@fieldses.org> <20110104164414.GX5875@const.bordeaux.inria.fr> <1294160834.6617.51.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1294249529.6617.118.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1294336674.12561.81.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1294347753.12561.106.camel@Joe-Laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:38:38 -0800 Message-ID: <1294349918.12561.142.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 22:14 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Joe Perches 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.