From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4lh-0000BQ-1I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:39:33 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4lg-0000AB-4N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:39:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56869 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4lf-00009y-U3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:39:31 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]:19121) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lx4lf-0001hF-DN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:39:31 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so53255fgb.8 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:39:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80904231215p62c6594asc50230b252e892aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090423185308.GH3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20090423191040.GI3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <5d6222a80904231215p62c6594asc50230b252e892aa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:39:29 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [7234] Use a more natural order From: Blue Swirl 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: Glauber Costa Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Lennart Sorensen On 4/23/09, Glauber Costa wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Lennart Sorensen > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:01:43PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> True, but it's not the style that is used here. You are of course free > >> to argue for using this version and even submit patches. > > > > I didn't check if it is covered by the codestyle or not for qemu. > > > > If your patch comment had said "Fix to follow code style" rather than > > "make natural order" I wouldn't have said anything. Natural order in > > this case is a bad reason for the change. Following code style is a > > good reason (even if the code style may then be questionable). > > > > If the code style doesn't cover it at all, I would say the change is > > horrible and shouldn't be done at all. The change even caused a compile > > failure briefly (and hence breaks git bisect) by being commited completely > > untested I suspect. If it didn't cause a compile failure it at least > > should have caused a serious warning. > > > Note that this could be avoided by not commiting the code in the first place, > but rather, sending it to the mailing list. Everybody should be sending code > to the mailing list, even maintainers. > > Anthony is already doing that, and it greatly reduces the probability of getting > a broken bisect for broken patches. In this case he committed the patches even though I had pointed out these few remaining instances of this style. Gerd had fixed most of the issues on previous rounds but some were still left.