On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 07:17 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Ok, good to confirm that we do not yet have an objective standard for
> coding style. This means it's not yet something process documentation
> can better standardize for contributors and will be subject to ongoing
> taste debates. Lets reclaim the time to talk about objective items
> that *can* clarified across maintainers.
No, let's not and just clarify whether or not whitespace
style patches are acceptable patch submissions.
Coding style fragmentation is not otherwise acceptable to me.
nvdimm mandating 2 tab indentation when nvdimm itself is not
at all consistent in that regard is also whitespace noise.
> As for libnvdimm at this point I'd rather start with objective
> checkpatch error cleanups and defer the personal taste items.
Fine by me.
I do want to avoid documenting per-subsystem coding styles.
How about adding something to MAINTAINERS like:
A: Accepting patches by newbies or CodingStyle strict
and checkpatch could be changed turn off a bunch of
whitespace rules on a subsystem basis when run with
-f for files or without -f for a patch.
Most of this comes down to whitespace like
a = b + c
where it hardly matters if the CodingStyle mandated
space around + is used or
foo = bar(baz,
qux)
where qux position is not really important.
