Re: [PATCH] consistent function formatting for libsvn_ra

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Karl Fogel wrote:
> Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> writes:
>   
>> If blame information is really that important, we should scratch the
>> patch altogether. Otherwise I'd still rather opt for consistent style.
>>
>> I stumbled across this because Steve is looking into adding code to
>> one of the files in question, and we could not figure out the correct
>> style to use for new code.
>>
>> So I asked in IRC what style new code should use. Erik Huelsmann said
>> the project was aiming at keeping the style consistent within modules.
>> Since libsvn_ra's style is totally ambiguous, I created the patch to
>> make it consistent.
>>
>> So, for me, it's not about being tidy for the sake of it, but because
>> of the benefits consistency provides when adding or modying code.
>>     
>
> I think consistency is worth it too.  Maybe apply this after 1.5 is
> released?
>   

... after which there will be no more backports?

"A foolish consistency" etc. I vote we leave well enough alone.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] consistent function formatting for libsvn_ra

[David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote:
>  > Karl Fogel wrote:
>  >  > Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> writes:
>  >  >
>  >  >> If blame information is really that important, we should scratch the
>  >  >> patch altogether. Otherwise I'd still rather opt for consistent style.
>  >  >>
>  >  >> I stumbled across this because Steve is looking into adding code to
>  >  >> one of the files in question, and we could not figure out the correct
>  >  >> style to use for new code.
>  >  >>
>  >  >> So I asked in IRC what style new code should use. Erik Huelsmann said
>  >  >> the project was aiming at keeping the style consistent within modules.
>  >  >> Since libsvn_ra's style is totally ambiguous, I created the patch to
>  >  >> make it consistent.
>  >  >>
>  >  >> So, for me, it's not about being tidy for the sake of it, but because
>  >  >> of the benefits consistency provides when adding or modying code.
>  >  >>
>  >  >
>  >  > I think consistency is worth it too.  Maybe apply this after 1.5 is
>  >  > released?
>  >  >
>  >
>  >  ... after which there will be no more backports?
>  >
>  >  "A foolish consistency" etc. I vote we leave well enough alone.
>
>  We reformatted *all* our sources (remember Subversion-with-space?). I
>  really don't get you all (not you personally) keep talking about
>  backporting problems. We're *not* a closed source project with 115
>  variants for different customers we need to support until 2030; we
>  only have 1 or 2 active release branches: the cost of backporting is
>  only 2, not 115.

+1.

Especially since these are *not* rapidly changing files.  We only
change them when we incompatibly alter the signatures of RA APIs, and
any backport of such a change is likely to be otherwise annoying
anyway.

--dave



-- 
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/

Re: [PATCH] consistent function formatting for libsvn_ra

[Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>  > Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> writes:
>  >
>  >> If blame information is really that important, we should scratch the
>  >> patch altogether. Otherwise I'd still rather opt for consistent style.
>  >>
>  >> I stumbled across this because Steve is looking into adding code to
>  >> one of the files in question, and we could not figure out the correct
>  >> style to use for new code.
>  >>
>  >> So I asked in IRC what style new code should use. Erik Huelsmann said
>  >> the project was aiming at keeping the style consistent within modules.
>  >> Since libsvn_ra's style is totally ambiguous, I created the patch to
>  >> make it consistent.
>  >>
>  >> So, for me, it's not about being tidy for the sake of it, but because
>  >> of the benefits consistency provides when adding or modying code.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I think consistency is worth it too.  Maybe apply this after 1.5 is
>  > released?
>  >
>
>  ... after which there will be no more backports?
>
>  "A foolish consistency" etc. I vote we leave well enough alone.

We reformatted *all* our sources (remember Subversion-with-space?). I
really don't get you all (not you personally) keep talking about
backporting problems. We're *not* a closed source project with 115
variants for different customers we need to support until 2030; we
only have 1 or 2 active release branches: the cost of backporting is
only 2, not 115.

bye,


Erik who votes for consistency.