From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 17 22:24:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1408106566B for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:24:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.56]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9C38FC0C for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.60]) by qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ny3B1j0011HpZEsA6yPDJk; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:23:13 +0000 Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org ([24.8.232.202]) by omta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id nyPC1j00C4NgCEG8ayPCD3; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:23:13 +0000 Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q7HMNALo018340; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:23:10 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) From: Ian Lepore To: Kevin Oberman In-Reply-To: References: <157941699.20120815004542@serebryakov.spb.ru> <502AE8B5.9090106@FreeBSD.org> <502B775D.7000101@FreeBSD.org> <1849591745.20120815144006@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345139226.27688.48.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <174138639.20120817143840@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345215393.27688.85.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <1345223506.27688.116.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:23:10 -0600 Message-ID: <1345242190.27688.162.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:24:20 -0000 On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 14:29 -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ian Lepore > > No! Not bde! He'll notice that I violated style(9) by accidentally > > leaving an extra blank line between a comment block and the function > > definition. :) (There are probably more violations than that -- I did > > this when I was first trying to come to grips with the differences > > between style(9) and the almost-style(9) standards we use at work.) > > > > When I first proposed the changes, jhb remarked that they sounded good, > > but as far as I know, nobody reviewed the actual diff when I posted it. > > It looks like bde and phk were the primary maintainers back when this > > code was being more actively worked on. > > Why not bde? Everyone needs to learn what the term "bruceification" means. > > Believe me, there IS good reason for programming style and almost > everyone with a commit bit gets close. bde will provide a reminder of > any of those things you forgot were in style(9). This is something we > should appreciate, even if it does sting a bit. Did you miss the smiley I buried between two sentences there? Having worked on code written with no style guidelines, I totally understand the need for consistent style. While I find a couple of style(9)'s edicts to be massively annoying, all in all I'd rather work on code that has a consistent style I hate than on code with no consistency. -- Ian