On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:43:34 +0100 SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Markus, I've accepted the ones that I think made an improvement > > outweighing the inherent small costs of making any change. > > Does such a kind of feedback mean that you reconsidered any places > where you expressed a rejection initially? No. Once I have expressed strong reservations about a patch it would require some change in the facts to make me reevaluate. > > > > We also need to avoid code constructs that are unusual in error handling > > such as backwards gotos. > > Why would you like to exclude this approach if anything useful could be achieved > in the shown software design direction? Yes - exclude this. It trades of ease of review against briefness of code. Ease of review and hence verification of correctness is more important in these cases. > > > > Note however that most of the changes made so far are only minor improvements. > > I agree that corresponding effects are small just because the discussed > source code adjustments affected specific function implementations. > > > > I am not saying I don't appreciate them, > > Thanks. > > > > but rather than that they are of of low importance. > > A lot of details are competing also for our software development attention. > Exactly. Jonathan > Regards, > Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
