[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090328223740.GD28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:37:40 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:25:17PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > Ordering include based on length of line minimize the
> > risk of merge conflicts.
> > If people just add new includes in the bottom of the list you
> > are certain that a merge conflit happens.
> >
> > This scheme is starting to be used in several places with the
> > primary advocates being David Miller and Ingo.
> >
> > It is getting used both for includes _and_ for local variables.
> >
>
> Personally I'd prefer alphabetic order, sorting based on length isn't a
> complete ordering. Nearly all editors can sort alphabetically at the
> push of a key.
*shrug*
FWIW, the real problem is that we have far too many includes in a typical
file; the ordering wouldn't matter if there would be 4-5 #include in
foo.c. Inventing elaborate policies to cope with that crap instead of
addressing the root cause (namely, cut'n'paste approach to includes) is
rather pointless...
--
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