[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A64587.2010704@shadowen.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:31:35 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
CC: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jul 25 2007 02:22, Paul Mundt wrote:
>> Perhaps CodingStyle can start being versioned, so people can opt out of
>> certain 'improvements' whenever someone has a vision, much like some
>> nameless licenses.
>
> I'd say Codingstyle is versioned by means of git commit IDs.
>
>> Personally I prefer the second style, and if there's a comment block,
>> then it makes sense to complete the tree with {}'s (the keyword here is
>> prefer, as it's a personal preference). checkpatch has been quite useful
>> for catching obviously broken things, and now it seems like it's just
>> overreaching. Perhaps this functionality can be split in to a lite
>> checkpatch for catching show-stoppers for application and then something
>> more akin to a CodingStyle validator for the folks interested in
>> arbitrarily defining convention, which they can use freely while the rest
>> of us try to get something useful done.
>
> /me thinks of ... checkpath --check-me-harder
Yep I think the consensus is we need a
"--i-don't-agree-just-check-things-which-will-get-me-rejected-out-of-hand"
option of some sort which will restrict output to the real errors.
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists