Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jul 25 2007 02:22, Paul Mundt wrote:
>> Perhaps CodingStyle can start being versioned, so people can opt out of
>> certain 'improvements' whenever someone has a vision, much like some
>> nameless licenses.
>
> I'd say Codingstyle is versioned by means of git commit IDs.
>
>> Personally I prefer the second style, and if there's a comment block,
>> then it makes sense to complete the tree with {}'s (the keyword here is
>> prefer, as it's a personal preference). checkpatch has been quite useful
>> for catching obviously broken things, and now it seems like it's just
>> overreaching. Perhaps this functionality can be split in to a lite
>> checkpatch for catching show-stoppers for application and then something
>> more akin to a CodingStyle validator for the folks interested in
>> arbitrarily defining convention, which they can use freely while the rest
>> of us try to get something useful done.
>
> /me thinks of ... checkpath --check-me-harder
Yep I think the consensus is we need a
"--i-don't-agree-just-check-things-which-will-get-me-rejected-out-of-hand"
option of some sort which will restrict output to the real errors.
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
