From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rod Boyce Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:30:16 +1300 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Enforcement of coding standards my $0.02 worth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030307083016.33c0ee1f.rod_boyce@stratexnet.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de All, After having read a lot of this thread. I'm going to add my $0.02 worth to this discussion. 'ident' is your friend it can convert the source very easily to any format you would like. I sometime agree Wolfgang can be a but picky but without a doubt I believe that Wolfgang is doing a great job of keeping a now very multi-platform boot loader that has to deal with many different CPU's and sometime conflicting hardware requirements a cohesive unity that is easy to port to different platforms. I agree with Wolfgang we all are standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. IMHO the code is untidy in quite a few places. I have noticed Wolfgang has reformatted patches I have sent him but who cares. I say Wolfgang is doing a fantastic job and to keep up the good work. I myself and many others on this list owe Wolfgang a beer or two if I ever get to meet you in person. Regards, Rod Boyce. PS I have disagreed with Wolfgang in the past but I still believe that U-Boot is a better product because Wolfgang is the lead and the maintainer a thankless job on many ocasions. On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:16:30 -0000 Chris Elston wrote: > I don't really want to get into the politics of when patches should be > accepted/rejected, but I do agree that we need to have an honest (and > friendly!) discussion of the #ifdef mess and coding standard enforcement > issues. > > Both Robert and Wolfgang have fair points. From Robert's point of view why > be picky about formatting when the rest of the source isn't as neat as it > could be. And from Wolfgang's point of view, why add more messy code - that > will just make things worse. > > Maybe we could have a blitz on everything where we just check and fix > adherence to the coding standards - no functionality changes, just > readability. Once we have the codebase in a 'tidied' state then Wolfgang > can more justifiably reject patches if they don't meet the standards. > > I think we can all agree that in places the source is a little untidy, and > that we wish to aim towards as readable and clear tree as we can - so let's > pull together and sort it out! > > Thanks > > Chris. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Schwebel [mailto:r.schwebel at pengutronix.de] > > Sent: 06 March 2003 16:08 > > To: U-Boot Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] 2/9: bootp > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:31:10PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > Robert, what do you want to demonstrate? > > > > > > That U-Boot was not written by one single person, stickng > > to exactly > > > one coding style? That there are deficiencies, both > > formal and > > > functional? > > > > > > What you do right now is not helpful. You have enough > > experience to > > > provide really valuable input - see some of your > > previous patches. > > > Please try to focus on substantial things, and concentrate > > on fixes > > > and extensions. > > > > You want open words, ok, here we go. > > > > Don't get me wrong, I generally have no problem with maintainers > > rejecting my patches. It's quite normal that maintainers know their > > projects much better than I do, so I'm used to going back to > > the lab and > > reworking stuff when it's necessary. > > > > My problem is that your argumentation regarding the "little things" is > > not easily understandable. You have a document in your code which says > > that Linux coding style should be used. If I send patches which fix > > coding style (and yes, it's only in source files I have worked on, > > otherwhise I wouldn't have found it) they are rejected. You > > say: improve > > documentation; if I find something and do it you reject it > > because it is > > not _exactly_ how you would have done it or how you did it. I try to > > improve usability by making help messages more understandable, because > > I, when I first tried to _use_ them didn't understand them and had to > > look at the source first (every good engineer should know how > > important > > the grandma test is ;). You reject them because I add 10 > > bytes to a 100 > > KiB bootloader. I try to improve #ifdef mess (and there's a lot of it > > left, I can tell you!) by using all the well known techniques > > like debug > > macros etc. You reject them because it doesn't change functionality. I > > try to make code better readable by unsing correct indentation - you > > reject it. Then, after all that 'it-doesn't-matter-how-the-code-looks- > > like-if-it-works' I add two lines with > > > > //#define foo > > #undef foo > > > > and you tell me that it's against the coding style. My impression is > > that you didn't care a single bit about coding style with the other > > 3.2 MiB of the code, so why do you care about my little improvements? > > It's not that easy to understand. > > > > Wolfgang, all these puzzle pieces are not worth to be > > mentioned when you > > see them separately, and I definitely have better things to do than > > starting flame wars. But all that stuff together - including your > > sometimes a little bit rude RTFM postings addressed to people who are > > _not_ as deep into the project as you are - definitely don't > > improve the > > mood of the developers here. > > > > Enough said - I would love to see an open discussion about how to > > improve the coding style / #ifdef problems. > > > > Robert > > -- > > Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de > > Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry > > Braunschweiger Str. 79, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany > > Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 > > Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of > > TotalView, The debugger > > for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you > > feeling lost and > > disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available > > on major UNIX > > and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com > > _______________________________________________ > > U-Boot-Users mailing list > > U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > __________ > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > > service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > > http://www.star.net.uk > > ______________________________________________________________ > > __________ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger > for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and > disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX > and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot-Users mailing list > U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users