From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15793 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2004 06:11:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15762 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 06:11:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 06:11:12 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Aym4H-0004GQ-A8; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:10:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200403032030.i23KUvW5001303@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> (message from Mark Kettenis on Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:30:57 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup i386-nat.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200402281538.i1SFcNds012429@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <200402290941.i1T9fEmb000400@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <9003-Sun29Feb2004204756+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <200403032030.i23KUvW5001303@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00064.txt > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:30:57 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > > I get the felling I somehow stepped on your toes. I'm sorry for that. > Although there were some genuine style "problems", my main motivation > for changing the coding style was the fact that it was mere > inconsistent with the rest of the i386-specific files in GDB. Since > I, as the i386 target maintainer feel somehow repsonsible for this > file, I tried to resolve the inconsistencies. In no way do I blame > you for those inconsistencies. Well, no offense, but it surely feels like nitpicking that got out of proportions. I labored on that code not only to make it right, but also so that it looks good. Most of those ``style problems'' are really conscious decisions on my part, meant to make the code aesthetically pleasant. I understand that our styles may well be different a bit, but since GDB is a program maintained by lots of people, it is no surprise that the code style isn't uniform. I don't see anything wrong with that, provided that the basic GNU coding conventions are preserved. E.g., I don't see any need to insist on a specific value of comment-column, or refill comment blocks, unless they are badly malformed. Do we really need this kind of ``style police''? I guess bottom line is, I think that minor style differences shouldn't be a reason for such extensive changes, especially when an area maintainer intends to exercise his/her privilege of committing such changes in someone else's code without any discussion. Am I the only one who thinks so? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15793 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2004 06:11:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15762 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 06:11:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 06:11:12 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Aym4H-0004GQ-A8; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:10:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200403032030.i23KUvW5001303@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> (message from Mark Kettenis on Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:30:57 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup i386-nat.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200402281538.i1SFcNds012429@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <200402290941.i1T9fEmb000400@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <9003-Sun29Feb2004204756+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <200403032030.i23KUvW5001303@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.bpc4PCwfXZ_ettrer2Mw9SZa0cpishNb4FRumRgH5Yw@z> > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:30:57 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > > I get the felling I somehow stepped on your toes. I'm sorry for that. > Although there were some genuine style "problems", my main motivation > for changing the coding style was the fact that it was mere > inconsistent with the rest of the i386-specific files in GDB. Since > I, as the i386 target maintainer feel somehow repsonsible for this > file, I tried to resolve the inconsistencies. In no way do I blame > you for those inconsistencies. Well, no offense, but it surely feels like nitpicking that got out of proportions. I labored on that code not only to make it right, but also so that it looks good. Most of those ``style problems'' are really conscious decisions on my part, meant to make the code aesthetically pleasant. I understand that our styles may well be different a bit, but since GDB is a program maintained by lots of people, it is no surprise that the code style isn't uniform. I don't see anything wrong with that, provided that the basic GNU coding conventions are preserved. E.g., I don't see any need to insist on a specific value of comment-column, or refill comment blocks, unless they are badly malformed. Do we really need this kind of ``style police''? I guess bottom line is, I think that minor style differences shouldn't be a reason for such extensive changes, especially when an area maintainer intends to exercise his/her privilege of committing such changes in someone else's code without any discussion. Am I the only one who thinks so?