Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: advdomestic.c cleanup II. (PR#1157)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: advdomestic.c cleanup II. (PR#1157)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Kaufman <mkaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: advdomestic.c cleanup II. (PR#1157)
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:59:03 +0100
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 02:15:19PM -0500, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
> At 06:39 PM 01/12/31 +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >Dear diary, on Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 07:49:49PM CET, I got a letter,
> >where "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> [...]
> >> +  build_points_left(acity) > get_unit_type(unit_type)->build_cost *
> >> caravans) {
> >> 
> >> *** Another line wrap.
> >Ok. Funny that people told me that I shouldn't do those changes I indent
> >will care about them ;-).
> 
> Indent is not the saviour of the world, but only a useful starting point.
> Once there is a basic pattern to the code, humans are infinitely more
> capable of refining the pattern to highlight useful concepts.
> 
> I keep telling Raimar that blind application of indent to every patch just 
> before it goes in breaks code in many idiotic ways and removes useful added
> value of the human touch.
> 
> Indent should be applied by a submitter, the code cleaned up to remove the
> worst abuse of indent and to make sure it didn't actually change something
> significant. Then changes can be applied consistent with the new (local)
> coding standard of the code to be fixed. Patchew should then be applied
> without additional (and certainly not mechanical) modification.

If I want a consistent style (K&R) in the CVS tree I have three options:
 1) I fix it
 2) the author fixes it (patch will be rejected because of things like
 "4<5")
 3) the patch goes in unchanged and a followup patch from another
 person should fix it.

3) is unacceptable for me. I have the impression that 2) is not
desired by most of the people. So I use 1).

Ross wants 2) for his patches. This is ok.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
  build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying
  to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
    -- Rich Cook


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