Guys, These are very basic things. All of these standards are extremely important. I'd like to urge everyone to adhere to them for the following reasons:
* The copyright headers are important since they legally notify anyone using the code that it is covered by a given license. This is important since some files can be under different licenses even in the same project. * Indentation is important since it allows everyone to use, basically, the standard settings on certain editors (in my case emacs) and provides a means by which we can all edit the same files without having to adhere to different standards throughout the code. * The header guards are needed for compilers for which #import is deprecated. This is one convention I'm on the fence about given that most modern compilers support #import properly. With respect to code reviews, it is up to the maintainers of each package to regularly monitor contributions which are committed to make certain that the quality of code is upheld. If you feel as though a contribution is not up to par, then it is up to you to demand correction of the offending code or to roll it back if that because necessary. GC On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Nicola Pero <nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com> wrote: > >> So, what can we do to make this disruptive behaviour stop ? It's >> exasperating. > > Having briefly looked at David's latest changes, it's worse than just missing > ChangeLog entries: > > * FSF/LGPL copyright headers are missing in new files. I even wonder if the > copyright was > assigned to the FSF or not, and obviously if the files are LGPL like the rest > (this is critically > important) > > * the indentation follows a different standard (which means that Richard > will have to waste > time reindenting the new file to be the same as everything else) > > * the headers lack the usual #include guards that allow them to work no > matter if #import or > #include is used (if we decide we don't want the #include guards, we should > remove them everywhere, > not just in one file, and it's a separate change that needs a separate > discussion) > > Do we need a "code review" step where every change is reviewed by Richard > before being applied > to gnustep-base ? He can make sure that our coding standards are followed. > But it seems a bit of > an annoyance for our normal, regular contributors who do follow the coding > standards. > > Thanks > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > Gnustep-dev@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > -- Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc. yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa (240)274-9630 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
