[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation
From:       Ondřej Bílka <neleai () seznam ! cz>
Date:       2013-10-24 11:11:29
Message-ID: 20131024111129.GA8777 () domone
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:53:33AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:45:05AM +0200, jpacner@redhat.com wrote:
> > > And beyond that I think there needs to be a automated C-style checker to
> > > enforce consistent C code formatting.  The checker could be run via a
> > > gate push hook.
> > 
> > Why not. Could someone with change repo rights accomplish that?
> 
> If you need an automated tool to enforce formatting rules, doesn't that
> apply that your code review process is broken and you risc to slip in
> serious bugs? Shouldn't formatting rules be part of the ordinary code
> review process?
> 
Quite the contrary. Human attention is limited and focusing on formating
issues means less focus on issues like if patch makes sense.

In best case reviewer first browses patch without any regard to
formating if there is problem and then does single pass for formating.
In worse case reviewer reads half of patch, notices missing comma and
writes that comma is missing. That switch causes him to forget details
from first half which are needed to find problem in second half.

This is also problem at larger scale, you send a patch and get reply to
fix formatting. Typically this takes week. In second version some
arguments raised when discussing first version are forgotten.

Now compare it to running a script that will fix these problems and you 
saved one roundtrip.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]