From owner-cvs-all Mon Dec 4 11:20:48 2000 From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 4 11:20:46 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from gratis.grondar.za (grouter.grondar.za [196.7.18.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330F537B400; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from grondar.za (root@gratis.grondar.za [196.7.18.133]) by gratis.grondar.za (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB4JKbe38294; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:20:37 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Message-Id: <200012041920.eB4JKbe38294@gratis.grondar.za> To: John Baldwin Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tail forward.c read.c reverse.c tail References: In-Reply-To: ; from John Baldwin "Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:58:55 PST." Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 21:20:39 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > They also ignore the register keyword, so this is a rather pointless change, > although it does add to repo bloat and in more active code could make diffs > harder to read. :-/ This particular code is very probably a lousy example, but when too many "minimalist" changes get made to a file, the file _sucks_ after some years. At some stage, garbage collection needs to be done. I recently tried to understand the twisty maze of garbage in sys/i386/... and was very frustated with the rotten (albeit functional) state of that code. Compare sys/i386/... with sys/alpha/... ( and the even more recent sys/ia64/... ) to see what I mean. I'm not promoting anything as destructive as a wholesale indent(1) of the code; that is silly. I _am_ saying that accepting code cleanups as inevitable is reasonable. Yes, we need to be conservative about them. But not conservative to the state of immobility. M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message