From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38889 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnDjb-0004kZ-E9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:49:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnDja-0001os-3a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:49:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9569) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnDjZ-0001oe-R5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:49:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4C71550F.6080602@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:49:19 +0200 From: Jes Sorensen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] CODING_STYLE amendments References: <4C6A4291.1020105@redhat.com> <4C6A8CD8.2080701@codemonkey.ws> 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 , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel On 08/21/10 16:03, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Could be "fun" for developers using Windows. If they exist. > > At least OCaml site offers binary download for Windows. I didn't > compile Coccinelle myself, so I don't know how much that helps. I know nothing about Coccinelle, but I did find that yum knew where to get it. However, that said, I think we should try to avoid depending on exotic tools that may not exist on OSes which may be used by developers. What about OSX? >>>> Even a working patch checking tool can only address the last issue >>>> (haphazard enforcement), not the other ones. You may not care. >>> >>> Which other ones? >> >> Quoting myself: >> >> [...] the current CODING_STYLE is >> idiosyncratic, > > Personal preference. I liked Fabrice's style but I also like current > style. I would probably like Linux style except for the LISPisms. I > don't like GNU or Java style. My favorite quote from the Linux kernel coding style: "First off, I'd suggest printing out a copy of the GNU coding standards, and NOT read it. Burn them, it's a great symbolic gesture." :) >> While wasting time for historical reasons is certainly better than >> wasting time for the heck of it, it's arguably worse than stopping the >> waste. > > But how would you do that? Drop the CODING_STYLE (and accept > anything)? Switch to a new CODING_STYLE that is widely appreciated and > so all bikeshedding will cease? Enforce current style? I would suggest we either clean up the existing rule, or switch to the Linux kernel style, with the explicit exemption that existing code can keep the 4-char indentation, unless the whole file is converted. I'd like to avoid a total reformatting of the codebase, but we could look at it on a file by file base if it becomes relevant. Regards, Jes