Hugh McIntyre wrote: > To be fair on the feedback on the short "s" variable name, this is the > name that the OpenGroup spec (and Linux) seem to use here, and therefore > seems OK.
True; such things are common elsewhere, and if the response had been something like "I don't think the scope of this variable warrants the sort of treatment prescribed in the current C style guidelines," I might have said "ok." Each item is separately negotiable, but a blanket "no" certainly is not. When I do a code review, I comment on _all_ of the issues I see in the code itself. It's the author's responsibility to determine what to do about the issues. Of course, if the response is random attacks on the reviewer ... well, then, I don't have to donate my time or name to the effort. Get someone else as your target. And if you try hard enough at it, then expect to end up in a procmail filter as well. (For what it's worth, if this were my code, and if someone had said exactly the same thing to me in a review, I would have simply accepted the comment and made an appropriate change. I wouldn't even have bothered discussing it. There's no need for something this trivial, and any other response on small matters ends up evincing disrespect for the time and effort a reviewer puts into the job. That's something I'd really rather not risk.) > You can certainly argue that if you're integrating a large chunk of > external code that will want to track external updates, such as AST or > cdrecord or similar, then you could have a valid case for different > styles. But it's really hard to justify this for a single very small > libc function that stands a good change of no edits from upstream, and > maybe no edits at all once integrated. Yes; that's an important issue for gatekeepers and project teams to wrestle with. There are times when remaining faithful to an upstream is the best choice. However, in most cases, it's worthwhile to adopt the common style in ON, regardless of what you may personally think of it. Heck, ON's style isn't even the same as my own style, but when coding in ON, I use their style: consistency matters much more than any personal preference. It's the price you pay for working on a mature code base with _thousands_ of contributors. In other words, if you think that "contribution" means "I'll post some selected code from a project I've been working on since 1982, and they've just _got_ to accept something that venerable," then you're plainly mistaken. That's not going to work here or in any other open source community I've ever participated in. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carls...@workingcode.com> _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
