|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM |
Date: | Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:07:07 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0 |
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.
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.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
Regards, Anthony LiguoriRegards, Anthony Liguori
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |