On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 22:14 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> Sure, standardization is a good thing - to a certain point. > >> >> We've passed this point long ago. > > Right. It's all exactly the same. > > We agree. Cites aren't necessary. > People complained on lkml and other lists that the CodingStyle / > checkpatch went way too far many times. So the evidence is there, in the > list archives, and I guess even now you're getting feedback on this. People complain, that's a fact. > OTOH you failed to show evidence that super-strict standardization > benefits anyone. I don't need to. If you don't agree with the assertion, facts likely won't change your mind. You'll more likely dispute the facts. Look up this paper if you care to though: Evaluating the Relation Between Coding Standard Violations and Faults Within and Across Software Versions Cathal Boogerd and Leon Moonen http://swerl.tudelft.nl/twiki/pub/Main/TechnicalReports/TUD-SERG-2009-008.pdf RQ2 Are files or modules with a higher violation density more fault-prone? This holds for 10 rules in the standard, with some reserva- tions. There is no reliable prediction for files without ac- tive development (no changes) nor for files without viola- tions. Also, the observed relation becomes less pronounced in time, as the number of registered open faults decreases. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
