Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] CODING_STYLE amendments

[malc <av1474@comtv.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2382 bytes --]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Blue Swirl wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 08/21/10 16:03, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> 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?
> 
> Same thing, binary for OCaml exists. There's none for *BSD or *Solaris, 
> though.

FWIW OCaml is bootstrapable using only C.
 
> >>>>> 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.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.
> 

Doesn't to me.

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru