From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761125AbXGXSbz (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:31:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755430AbXGXSbn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:31:43 -0400 Received: from hellhawk.shadowen.org ([80.68.90.175]:4331 "EHLO hellhawk.shadowen.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751714AbXGXSbm (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:31:42 -0400 Message-ID: <46A64587.2010704@shadowen.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:31:35 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Engelhardt CC: Paul Mundt , Andrew Morton , "Kok, Auke" , Randy Dunlap , Joel Schopp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08 References: <740c90243aaa6f6d4640d71230c4fa27@pinky> <46A534EA.6030008@intel.com> <46A5C12B.3080904@shadowen.org> <20070724021526.3d92286b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070724172217.GA10725@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jul 25 2007 02:22, Paul Mundt wrote: >> Perhaps CodingStyle can start being versioned, so people can opt out of >> certain 'improvements' whenever someone has a vision, much like some >> nameless licenses. > > I'd say Codingstyle is versioned by means of git commit IDs. > >> Personally I prefer the second style, and if there's a comment block, >> then it makes sense to complete the tree with {}'s (the keyword here is >> prefer, as it's a personal preference). checkpatch has been quite useful >> for catching obviously broken things, and now it seems like it's just >> overreaching. Perhaps this functionality can be split in to a lite >> checkpatch for catching show-stoppers for application and then something >> more akin to a CodingStyle validator for the folks interested in >> arbitrarily defining convention, which they can use freely while the rest >> of us try to get something useful done. > > /me thinks of ... checkpath --check-me-harder Yep I think the consensus is we need a "--i-don't-agree-just-check-things-which-will-get-me-rejected-out-of-hand" option of some sort which will restrict output to the real errors. -apw