On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:05:27PM +0530, Raghavendra G wrote:
> +1 to existing Linux kernel style. Moreover, its a style which is used
> heavily in existing code base. I don't see any advantage in changing the
> style now.
I fully agree with this. Also, if changes are done, please update the
doc/coding-standard.* files in the sources.
Thanks,
Niels
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > <top post>
> >
> > ISTR we agreed to use Linux kernel style!
> >
> > Which is
> >
> > if (foo) {
> > /* ... */
> > } else {
> > /* ... */
> > }
> >
> > I don't recall any discussion on -devel about changing this.
> >
> > </top post>
> >
> >
> > On 10/13/2014 11:05 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 10/13/2014 07:43 PM, Shyam wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/13/2014 10:08 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/13/2014 07:27 PM, Shyam wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/13/2014 08:01 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> hi,
> >>>>>> Why are we moving away from this coding style?:
> >>>>>> if (x) {
> >>>>>> /*code*/
> >>>>>> } else {
> >>>>>> /* code */
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch (in master) introduces the same and explains why,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> commit 0a8371bdfdd88e662d09def717cc0b822feb64e8
> >>>>> Author: Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Date: Mon Sep 29 17:27:14 2014 -0400
> >>>>>
> >>>>> extras: reverse test for '}' vs. following 'else' placement
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two-line form "}\nelse {" has been more common than the
> >>>>> one-line
> >>>>> form "} else {" in our code for years, and IMO for good reason (see
> >>>>> the comment in the diff).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Will there be any objections to allow the previous way of writing this
> >>>> if/else block? I just don't want to get any errors in 'check-formatting'
> >>>> when I write the old way for this.
> >>>> May be we can change it to warning?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am going to state my experience/expectation :)
> >>>
> >>> I actually got this _error_ when submitting a patch, and thought to
> >>> myself "isn't the one-line form the right one?" then went to see why
> >>> this check was in place and read the above. Going by the reason in the
> >>> patch, I just adapted myself.
> >>>
> >>> Now, coming to _allowing_ both forms with a warning, my personal call
> >>> is _no_, we should allow one form so that the code is readable and
> >>> there is little to no confusion for others on which form to use. So I
> >>> would say no to your proposal.
> >>>
> >> Hmm... okay (It is still not an emphatic yes). But it is a waste of time
> >> to talk more about this.
> >>
> >> Jeff/Vijay,
> >> I urge you guys to notify others before making basic style
> >> changes like this.
> >>
> >> Pranith
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Shyam
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gluster-devel mailing list
> >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Kaleb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Raghavendra G
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
