On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 05:03:47PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 15:53:35 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 02:18:17PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:56 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Incrementally converting VIR_ALLOC + VIR_AUTOFREE at the same > > > > time, makes more sense stylewise, as then within the scope of a > > > > single method we'd be consistent. > > > > > > I see your point about backports being more painful when you have > > > a bunch of unrelated changes mixed in, but I would still prefer if > > > we converted everything at once and at the same time introduced a > > > suitable syntax-check rule preventing more instances of whatever > > > function we just removed all callers of from creeping back in, or > > > actually just dropping the function altogether. > > > > > > Doing the conversion incrementally will IMHO result in dragging it > > > for much longer, causing more pain in the long run than ripping the > > > bandaid would. > > > > There's really not any significant real world pain from mixing the > > two styles. It is visually distasteful but doesn't cause any functional > > problems at runtime, nor complexity for maintainers. A large conversion > > over the whole codebase does cause very significant pain in conflicts > > for anyone cherry picking patches. That is just not a net win overall. > > I'll take visually mixed styles any day over creating patch conflicts > > in backports. > > I don't see how. If the end-goal is to convert everything to the new > form you will get into potential pain/conflicts sooner or later anyways. If we incrementally convert methods, then when backporting a patch related to that method, we have good chance of being able to cherry-pick the small conversion patch. If we bulk convert entire file at a time, across the whole codebase, attempting to cherry-pick the conversion patches will have much higher conflict liklihood. > Or the other option is to leave it as a half-done lingering refactor and > that doesn't help either. It don't be in a half-done state forever. We can let things be converted incrementally over the next 3-6 months. At the end of say 6 months if anything is left we bulk convert it them. That gets the benefits opf incremental work without downside of stuff remaining unconverted forever. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
