Peter Maydell writes:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 09:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> CODING_STYLE.rst: "Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them
>> longer." I'd like to keep the tooling we have to help us with trying
>> not to make them longer.
>>
>> If we have lost the ability to differ
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 09:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> CODING_STYLE.rst: "Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them
> longer." I'd like to keep the tooling we have to help us with trying
> not to make them longer.
>
> If we have lost the ability to differentiate between "warning" and
>
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 16:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>> > Personally I just don't think checkpatch should be nudging people
>> > into folding 85-character lines, especially when there are
>> > multiple very similar lines in a row and only one wo
Developers
> ; ganqixin ; Paolo
> Bonzini ; Chenqun (kuhn)
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Modify the line length limit of
> the
> code
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 16:08, Markus Armbruster
> wrote:
> > Peter Maydell writes:
> > > Personally
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 16:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
> > Personally I just don't think checkpatch should be nudging people
> > into folding 85-character lines, especially when there are
> > multiple very similar lines in a row and only one would get
> > folded, eg the pro
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 14:08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Can we keep the error please? Maybe 132 is the next display logical
>> limit once we increased the warning from 80 to 100.
>>
>> I understand hardware evolved, we have larger displays with better
>> resolution
On 11/6/20 3:16 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 14:08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Can we keep the error please? Maybe 132 is the next display logical
>> limit once we increased the warning from 80 to 100.
>>
>> I understand hardware evolved, we have larger displays with bett
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 14:08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Can we keep the error please? Maybe 132 is the next display logical
> limit once we increased the warning from 80 to 100.
>
> I understand hardware evolved, we have larger displays with better
> resolution and can fit more characters in
On 11/6/20 2:39 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 13:07, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> The current "warn at 80, error at 90" is a compromise. It's the result
>> of a lengthy argument. Why reopen it?
>
> There was some previous discussion under this thread:
> https://lists.gnu.org/a
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 13:07, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> The current "warn at 80, error at 90" is a compromise. It's the result
> of a lengthy argument. Why reopen it?
There was some previous discussion under this thread:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-10/msg05653.html
which
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 06:15, Gan Qixin wrote:
>>
>> Modify the rule that limit the length of lines according to the following
>> ideas:
>>
>> --add a variable max_line_length to indicate the limit of line length and
>> set it to 100 by default
>> --when the line length
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 06:15, Gan Qixin wrote:
>
> Modify the rule that limit the length of lines according to the following
> ideas:
>
> --add a variable max_line_length to indicate the limit of line length and set
> it to 100 by default
> --when the line length exceeds max_line_length, output w
12 matches
Mail list logo
