[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 100+ warnings and some cosmetics along the way (issue1724041)

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: 100+ warnings and some cosmetics along the way (issue1724041)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:10:20 +0100

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Did you run the regression test?
>  - I just did (make check?), it fails (I guess, I'm not sure what to
> look for).

This is absolutely critical for any large-scale code change.

>> If we are doing a fixup of this, we should try to do all files at the
> same time, or at least a section of files.
>  - I will gladly do that, even if it takes a lot of time, but we should
> clarify a few things first, as my developing RSI doesn't permit me to do
> things that will simply be rejected (I do have some time now, however).
> Should I write a basic coding guideline, based on the source code (and
> the provided links), that you guys can modify so that everything
> important is clarified (eg. A huge poll could
> follow it, with the alternatives that were presented there.

Read the Contributor's Guide, and all the emails linked from:

I'm not certain if you want to spend 20+ hours working on the code
style.  My recommendation is to work on non-contentious issues, like
fixing compiler warnings such as casting from signed to unsigned.

>> I agree with this in some cases but not in all, which is also why I
> want to see more targeted commits, so we discuss specific cases.
>  - Would it be possible, to discuss it first? I don't like to work in
> vain.

That's why it's vital to submit small patches, covering separate
matters -- yes, this makes it easier for us to discuss, but it also
protects you from doing a lot of work that later gets rejected.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]