On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jes Sorensen <jes.soren...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/21/10 16:03, Blue Swirl wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >>> Could be "fun" for developers using Windows. If they exist. >> >> At least OCaml site offers binary download for Windows. I didn't >> compile Coccinelle myself, so I don't know how much that helps. > > I know nothing about Coccinelle, but I did find that yum knew where to > get it. However, that said, I think we should try to avoid depending on > exotic tools that may not exist on OSes which may be used by developers. > What about OSX?
Same thing, binary for OCaml exists. There's none for *BSD or *Solaris, though. >>>>> Even a working patch checking tool can only address the last issue >>>>> (haphazard enforcement), not the other ones. You may not care. >>>> >>>> Which other ones? >>> >>> Quoting myself: >>> >>> [...] the current CODING_STYLE is >>> idiosyncratic, >> >> Personal preference. I liked Fabrice's style but I also like current >> style. I would probably like Linux style except for the LISPisms. I >> don't like GNU or Java style. > > My favorite quote from the Linux kernel coding style: > "First off, I'd suggest printing out a copy of the GNU coding standards, > and NOT read it. Burn them, it's a great symbolic gesture." :) > >>> While wasting time for historical reasons is certainly better than >>> wasting time for the heck of it, it's arguably worse than stopping the >>> waste. >> >> But how would you do that? Drop the CODING_STYLE (and accept >> anything)? Switch to a new CODING_STYLE that is widely appreciated and >> so all bikeshedding will cease? Enforce current style? > > I would suggest we either clean up the existing rule, or switch to the > Linux kernel style, with the explicit exemption that existing code can > keep the 4-char indentation, unless the whole file is converted. I'd > like to avoid a total reformatting of the codebase, but we could look at > it on a file by file base if it becomes relevant. Sounds reasonable.