From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6391 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2014 11:45:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 6379 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jan 2014 11:45:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:45:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9D51164C2; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:45:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3YVVQiULiI8b; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:45:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB04C1166F3; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8014EE09FF; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:45:44 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:45:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFC] Change coding style rule: 80 column "hard limit" for ChangeLogs Message-ID: <20140108114544.GN3802@adacore.com> References: <83bnzsw6ro.fsf@gnu.org> <20140105040005.GA3802@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 > That would not achieve the goal of one limit only, > unless ChangeLogs have a hard limit of 80, and 74 is the soft limit. > > [I'm treating "hard" as "do not violate unless there's a compelling reason", > and "soft" as a guideline. btw, I can no longer think of that word without also > thinking of Pirates of the Caribbean. :-)] > > > Other than the opinion above, it's not really all that important to me. > > So I'm good with whatever reasonable limit the group decides. We just > > need to make sure we document the decision, with reference to the > > discussion. > > I'm not overly fond of anything below 80 (well, 79, but I certainly > don't reject patches that use 80). I'm really easy, so I don't mind your proposal. Just for the record, to me, "soft" means "stay within the limit unless you have a reasonable reason to exceed", while "hard" means "do not exceed unless you just cannot do otherwise". As you can see, slightly stronger barriers. But I know also that it's really nitpicking, so I tend to worry too much about soft violations when reviewing patches, making that soft barrier a little softer :-). But I pay attention to that limit myself when modifying the code. -- Joel