From: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, "Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
"Cédric Le Goater" <clg@kaod.org>, "Greg Kurz" <groug@kaod.org>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] HACKING vs. CODING_STYLE (was: Re: [PATCH] HACKING: Clarify the paragraph about typedefs)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:43:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23057d08-76cd-0ab8-d940-974ed3d1d1a0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <552ac2db-6568-18f8-5397-a00c4b432df9@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 699 bytes --]
On 1/16/19 4:58 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-11 11:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> [...]
>> And, I would move it to CODING_STYLE since we are at it. :)
>
> I just got some feedback in IRC already, and seems like I am not alone,
> so let's discuss it here on the mailing list, too: What's the exact
> difference between CODING_STYLE and HACKING? Some of the paragraphs in
> HACKING sound rather mandatory and coding-style related, too...
> Should we maybe merge the two files into one (e.g. called "CODING")?
Merging the files sounds reasonable to me.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-16 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-11 8:42 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] HACKING: Clarify the paragraph about typedefs Thomas Huth
2019-01-11 10:38 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-01-11 12:12 ` Cédric Le Goater
2019-01-11 14:31 ` Greg Kurz
2019-01-16 10:58 ` [Qemu-devel] HACKING vs. CODING_STYLE (was: Re: [PATCH] HACKING: Clarify the paragraph about typedefs) Thomas Huth
2019-01-16 11:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-01-16 14:43 ` Eric Blake [this message]
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=23057d08-76cd-0ab8-d940-974ed3d1d1a0@redhat.com \
--to=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=clg@kaod.org \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=groug@kaod.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).