From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43958) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEK2-0005Lp-Cu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:07:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEK0-0007Au-EM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:07:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:42306) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEK0-0007AU-9Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:07:12 -0400 Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so6298760obb.4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F70B04B.3030306@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:07:07 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1332727608-26523-1-git-send-email-liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F70A8E2.10508@codemonkey.ws> <4F70AB4A.8050000@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity , Wanpeng Li , Gavin Shan On 03/26/2012 01:01 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 17:45, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> >> Is this something we universally want to do? What would we do about patches >> to audio? > > I'd do it in cases when there is code movement, then git blame will > not be very useful anyway and other people have to rebase their > patches as well. > > The audio case has an additional factor, namely maintainer disagreeing > with global style and consistency. There are several ways how to > handle that case, one of which is to maintain status quo. > >> I'd prefer not to go down this road. Let's keep discussion of fixing >> CODING_STYLE of existing code separate from rearchitecting/enhancing code. > > When code is moved, rearchitected or enhanced, that would be a good > point when to fix style too. Though this assumes that just fixing > style without those events is evil, but is it? I think you have not > been fully consistent in this matter. I think modifying coding style alone is evil. But I'm also sick of arguing about coding style. If you take this patch series as an example, this is the beginning of a fundamental refactoring to how we do machines and devices in QEMU--and yet, we're discussing coding style. I don't see an obvious way to just get past the coding style discussions. If there was a perfect way to automate fixing coding style, at this point, I would say let's do it. But there is no way I want to spend the next two years taking coding style fixup patches. Regards, Anthony Liguori >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori >> >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Anthony Liguori >> >>