On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> > Sent: пятница, 16 октября 2020 г. 13:24 > To: Anastasiia Lukianenko <anastasiia_lukiane...@epam.com>; > jbeul...@suse.com; george.dun...@citrix.com > Cc: Artem Mygaiev <artem_myga...@epam.com>; vicooo...@gmail.com; > xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; committ...@xenproject.org; > viktor.mitin...@gmail.com; Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babc...@epam.com> > Subject: Re: Xen Coding style and clang-format > > > Hi, > > > > On 16/10/2020 10:42, Anastasiia Lukianenko wrote: > > > Thanks for your advices, which helped me improve the checker. I > > > understand that there are still some disagreements about the > > > formatting, but as I said before, the checker cannot be very flexible > > > and take into account all the author's ideas. > > > > I am not sure what you refer by "author's ideas" here. The checker > > should follow a coding style (Xen or a modified version): > > - Anything not following the coding style should be considered as > > invalid. > > - Anything not written in the coding style should be left > > untouched/uncommented by the checker. > > > > Agree > > > > I suggest using the > > > checker not as a mandatory check, but as an indication to the author of > > > possible formatting errors that he can correct or ignore. > > > > I can understand that short term we would want to make it optional so > > either the coding style or the checker can be tuned. But I don't think > > this is an ideal situation to be in long term. > > > > The goal of the checker is to automatically verify the coding style and > > get it consistent across Xen. If we make it optional or it is > > "unreliable", then we lose the two benefits and possibly increase the > > contributor frustration as the checker would say A but we need B. > > > > Therefore, we need to make sure the checker and the coding style match. > > I don't have any opinions on the approach to achieve that. > > Of the list of remaining issues from Anastasiia, looks like only items 5 > and 6 are conform to official Xen coding style. As for remainning ones, > I would like to suggest disabling those that are controversial (items 1, > 2, 4, 8, 9, 10). Maybe we want to have further discussion on refining > coding style, we can use these as starting point. If we are open to > extending style now, I would suggest to add rules that seem to be > meaningful (items 3, 7) and keep them in checker.
Good approach. Yes, I would like to keep 3, 7 in the checker. I would also keep 8 and add a small note to the coding style to say that comments should be aligned where possible.
