[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: malc
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] CODING_STYLE amendments
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:39:11 +0400 (MSD)
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Blue Swirl wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Jes Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 08/21/10 12:47, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> Unless you mass-convert existing code to your style, tools working on
> >>> source files won't cut it, because reports of the patch's style
> >>> violations are prone to drown in a sea of reports of preexisting style
> >>> violations.  There's a reason why Linux's scrtips/checkpatch.pl works on
> >>> patch files.
> >>
> >> Mass conversion would have the benefit that submitters, who use old
> >> code as their reference, are more likely to use the correct style.
> >
> > Problem with mass conversion is that it becomes really hard to track
> > changes for debugging. While it would be nice to get all code to look
> > the 'right way<tm>' in a snap, then I think it will cause more harm than
> > good.
> Well, consider for example mass braces conversion to the One Style,
> whichever that is. Would it be better to do it in one commit or
> multiple commits? If the latter, push all commits back-to-back or just
> one at a time now and then?
> At the extreme end, we could even convert one statement per commit.
> This would make bug hunting with git bisect extremely precise. There
> would be a cost of long commit log.
> For the patch submitters, wouldn't one shot conversion (with one push,
> one or many commits) be less painful?
> >>> I still think inventing yet another idiosyncratic coding style plus
> >>> tools to enforce it is a waste of time.
> >>
> >> There are historical reasons for the style used in the current code
> >> base. There are also reasons why CODING_STYLE was written like it
> >> stands now.
> >
> > Yes, it's a classic case, there is always the historical side and
> > personal bios for why it was written the way it is. Often this is goes
> > back to personal preference rather than reason :( IMHO it isn't such a
> > big issue what the style is, as long as it is consistent and efficient.
> > The problem with the style we have now is that is is totally
> > inconsistent
> Fully agree.
> > and has elements making it harder to debug the code, like
> > the braces around single line if statements.
> What's the problem?

Disregarding my own stance on the braces, braces around single statement
is actually helpful w.r.t. debugging imaging trying to set a break point
on said singlesttement, plain impossible in following case:

if (a) b;

> > I totally agree with Markus
> > that it seems like wasted effort to come up with new tools and having to
> > maintain them when there are good ones out there like the ones from the
> > Linux kernel.
> I also find the tool argument very attractive. No other style has that 
> benefit.


reply via email to

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