Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:28:21 -0500 From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r365071 - in head/sys: net net/altq net/route net80211 netgraph netgraph/atm netgraph/atm/ccatm netgraph/atm/sscfu netgraph/atm/sscop netgraph/atm/uni netgraph/bluetooth/common netgraph... Message-ID: <202009052228.085MSLh6023456@mail.karels.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:26:47 -0400. <CAPyFy2DDjNFR8u4ph_w3Cdsbx6cwKms61MOhLdSCPfQDJyBFKA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> > Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:26:47 -0400 > Subject: Re: svn commit: r365071 - in head/sys: net net/altq net/route > net80211 netgraph netgraph/atm netgraph/atm/ccatm netgraph/atm/sscfu > netgraph/atm/sscop netgraph/atm/uni netgraph/bluetooth/common netgraph.= .. > On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 16:41, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > >> Fixed: > >> - *_FOREACH now has a space before (, equivalent to for (;;) > > > > Except pretty much everywhere we don't have a space there... > Why not? Why should TAILQ_FOREACH have a different style from a for loop= ? Because it is a macro, maybe? And all the other invocations are done that way. > > broke all alignment of variables and comments that were done. > > broke purposely outdented code in statistics function > > broke all err() calls to wrap too much > I had all of these under "indifferent" already, or are more examples > of already covered cases (e.g. what seems to be string argument > wrapping). I don't consider those indifferent. > > extra headers still included. > This is probably not the job of a formatter though. > >> - function argument wrapping (see write_glyph_buf) > >> - leading indentation and args-per-line (print_font_info) > > > > An interesting experiment, but there's far more worse after than befor= e. The rearranging of carefully aligned elements is an especially galling = change for some people (myself included). > I disagree this is far worse. If we fixed the wrapping on the second > line of if/for conditions I'd say the benefit of letting tooling take > care of the formatting outweighs the perhaps slightly less appealing > formatting. I'm with Warner on this. I saw a lot to dislike in the changes, and very little actual improvement. If we were starting from scratch, I might be willing to accept the changes to have a formatter (albeit begrudingly), bu= t we are not starting from scratch. The churn would be horrible, and the benefit very little in comparison. Interesting experiment, but let's keep it just an experiment. Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202009052228.085MSLh6023456>