On 2020-08-28 09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:58, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I'm not a huge fan of adding *one* odd line breaking the 80 column >>>> recommendation to any file. I like to be able to fit multiple >>>> windows side by side in a meaningful way. Also, I don't like having >>>> a shitload of emptiness on my screen, which is what happens when some >>>> lines are longer and you want to see it all. I strongly believe that >>>> the 80 column rule/recommendation is still as valid as it ever was. >>>> It's just hard to read longish lines; there's a reason newspapers >>>> columns are quite narrow... >>>> >>>> Same comment for the envelope-detector (3/18). >>>> >>>> You will probably never look at these files again, but *I* might have >>>> to revisit them for one reason or another, and these long lines will >>>> annoy me when that happens. >>> >>> Initially I posted it with 80-characters wrap. Then I received a comment >>> - better to stick to the new 100, as checkpatch accepts it. >>> >>> Now you write, better to go back to 80. >>> >>> Maybe then someone else will write to me, better to go to 100. >>> >>> And another person will reply, no, coding style still mentions 80, so >>> keep it at 80. >>> >>> Sure guys, please first decide which one you prefer, then I will wrap it >>> accordingly. :) >>> >>> Otherwise I will just jump from one to another depending on one person's >>> personal preference. >>> >>> If there is no consensus among discussing people, I find this 100 line >>> more readable, already got review, checkpatch accepts it so if subsystem >>> maintainer likes it, I prefer to leave it like this. >> >> I'm not impressed by that argument. For the files I have mentioned, it >> does not matter very much to me if you and some random person think that >> 100 columns might *slightly* improve readability. >> >> Quoting coding-style >> >> Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks, >> unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does >> not hide information. >> >> Notice that word? *significantly* > > Notice also checkpatch change... How is that relevant? checkpatch has *never* had the final say and its heuristics can never be perfect. Meanwhile, coding style is talking about exactly the case under discussion, and agrees with me perfectly. > First of all, I don't have a preference over wrapping here. As I said, > I sent v1 with 80 and got a response to change it to 100. You want me > basically to bounce from A to B to A to B. > >> Why do I even have to speak up about this? WTF? > > Because we all share here our ideas... > >> For the patches that touch files that I originally wrote [1], my >> preference should be clear by now. > > I understood your preference. There is nothing unclear here. Other > person had different preference. I told you my arguments that it is > not reasonable to jump A->B->A->B just because each person has a > different view. At the end it's the subsystem maintainer's decision as > he wants to keep his subsystem clean. Yeah, I bet he is thrilled about it. Cheers, Peter
