On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:49:46PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2019-01-23 14:43:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >> The function name comments are similar, though less consistent so I'm >> too lazy to write a script to find one that is actually wrong (with >> which to trigger Andres's let's-delete-them-all response :-D).
I am not sure if anybody uses them for anything automatically, still I find myself from time to time looking at them to remember on which path the file is located when opened in emacs. So I still like having those references, perhaps I am just a minority. Being in the minority is usually a cool thing, still if you wish ripping all these out it's not like I'll cry for that, so please feel free to do as you see fit. > I wish function comment styles were more consistent, but there's *SO* > many styles, that I think it's hard to nicely automate it. And it's much > more likely to cause conflicts than removing IDENTIFICATION. So... Yes, I am usually more annoyed by the inconsistency of the function upper blocks than IDENTIFICATION... So I just try to stick with keeping any new code consistent with the surroundings. Making back-patching harder than it is now is not really appealing, so I'd be -1 for doing any consistency work. Patching six branches for the same patch is already a lot of work. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
