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

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation
From:       Will Fiveash <will.fiveash () oracle ! com>
Date:       2013-10-24 17:15:32
Message-ID: 20131024171532.GA1053 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:11:29PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> 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.

Not only is attention limited so is a reviewer's time.  As such it's
much more important to review the substance of the code change than
spend time commenting about C-style nits.  This is why the Solaris
development environment has a C-style checking utility that both the
developer can run to correct issues prior to pushing a changeset and the
source gate repo can run via a hook for each push to ensure compliance.

-- 
Will Fiveash
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]