From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47819 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OlHAD-0005eF-PV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:04:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OlHAC-00027J-BU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:04:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49261) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OlHAC-00026y-4b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:04:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4C6A4291.1020105@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:04:33 +0200 From: Jes Sorensen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] CODING_STYLE amendments References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho , qemu-devel On 08/13/10 20:02, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho > wrote: >> The existing code that I have touched don't follow the current coding >> style guidance, much less all the new recommendations being suggested. >> >> Although, I do believe that this situation needs to change. If we >> agree in a coding style, I would volunteer to be a some kind of >> observer to fix and alert people about coding styles mistakes. > > I fully agree on the need of change and support your excellent idea. > There are other ways to solve the problem, but I believe we need more > order than more chaos. Perhaps we the QEMU developers should appoint > you the Guardian of the CODING_STYLE, and add a rule that no patch > shall be committed without your CS-Acked-by line? I don't think this would ever work, it is begging for trouble relying on one person to review all patches for this. While I agree coding style is good since it enforces consistency, there are plenty problems with the old rules. For example the rule to demand braces around single line in an if statement. It results in more empty lines on the screeen, ie lost screen real estate making it harder for someone reading the code to get a good overview. If we are going to mod the QEMU coding style rules, I strongly recommend we look at the Linux kernel rules, while keeping the 4 space indentation, rather than trying to adopt things from libvirt. Cheers, Jes