From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42289 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnSTT-0003VX-4B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:33:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnSTR-0006SV-QN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:33:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnSTR-0006SG-Jz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:33:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4C72325A.6070405@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:33:30 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] CODING_STYLE amendments References: <4C6A4291.1020105@redhat.com> <4C6A8CD8.2080701@codemonkey.ws> <4C71550F.6080602@redhat.com> <4C716FB3.2090505@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4C716FB3.2090505@codemonkey.ws> 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: Anthony Liguori Cc: Jes Sorensen , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel , Blue Swirl , Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho Am 22.08.2010 20:42, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 08/22/2010 01:36 PM, malc wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> Sounds reasonable. >>> >>> >> Doesn't to me. >> > > I'm strongly opposed to any reformatting of the tree. > > All it does is break git blame which makes debugging harder without > offering any real benefits. Thanks, Anthony. I fully agree. (And Avi added another good reason.) And while I'm posting my hopefully only post to this thread, let me mention that I'm fine with our current CODING_STYLE and can't see a reason for another switch. Kevin