On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:13 -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 9/30/19 10:05 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > 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. > > Don't forget that make syntax-check doesn't work properly for many > downstream maintenance branches that would be backported to (it has to > be disabled due to copyright date checks failing, or something like > that). That's a problem for downstream to solve. By the same token, all the existing syntax-check rules are pointless because they can't be guaranteed to hold for downstream branches. > In order to allay Andrea's fears of new usage of VIR_AUTO* that just > draws out the conversion, maybe we could (temporarily, until the > conversion is complete) put a commit hook in place to disallow new use > of VIR_AUTO ? Or just, you know, pay attention in reviews (but of course > part of the point of all of this is to eliminate the potential for human > error, by depending less on humans paying attention, so... :-P) Writing a check that compares the situation before a commit and after it is not as easy as a point-in-time check. Instead of spending a non-trival amount of time implementing something like that, I'd rather spend my time dealing with the fallout of a one-time conversion. > (BTW, I'm not firmly in *either* camp, although I may lean a bit more > towards a gradual change (but with a *very* steep slope to minimize the > period of confusion) That's just a big-bang conversion with extra steps! -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
