[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to ta
From: |
Blue Swirl |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:25:00 +0000 |
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 18:07, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 03/26/2012 01:01 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 17:45, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this something we universally want to do? What would we do about
>>> patches
>>> to audio?
>>
>>
>> I'd do it in cases when there is code movement, then git blame will
>> not be very useful anyway and other people have to rebase their
>> patches as well.
>>
>> The audio case has an additional factor, namely maintainer disagreeing
>> with global style and consistency. There are several ways how to
>> handle that case, one of which is to maintain status quo.
>>
>>> I'd prefer not to go down this road. Let's keep discussion of fixing
>>> CODING_STYLE of existing code separate from rearchitecting/enhancing
>>> code.
>>
>>
>> When code is moved, rearchitected or enhanced, that would be a good
>> point when to fix style too. Though this assumes that just fixing
>> style without those events is evil, but is it? I think you have not
>> been fully consistent in this matter.
>
>
> I think modifying coding style alone is evil.
>
> But I'm also sick of arguing about coding style. If you take this patch
> series as an example, this is the beginning of a fundamental refactoring to
> how we do machines and devices in QEMU--and yet, we're discussing coding
> style.
Well, if for example this "fix style in the first patch, then move"
would be a widely accepted rule, there would be no discussion. Now we
can discuss forever if reformatting is needed or not.
> I don't see an obvious way to just get past the coding style discussions.
> If there was a perfect way to automate fixing coding style, at this point,
> I would say let's do it. But there is no way I want to spend the next two
> years taking coding style fixup patches.
I'd just reformat once, that would reduce fixup patches considerably.
I can also volunteer to review and apply all pure style fixup patches
if that helps.
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Anthony Liguori
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Liguori
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Andreas Färber, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Blue Swirl, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Blue Swirl, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Blue Swirl, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2012/03/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM,
Blue Swirl <=
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2012/03/26