Hey Chandra, On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:14:33PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:30 -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hey Chandra, > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:25:08PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > In preparation for combined pquota/gquota support, do some > > > whitespace cleanups. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Wow. Putting this in a patch by itself really puts it into stark > > relief. > > > > If we pull this in we're representing that some tabs and the alignment > > of the fields is more valuable than the comments? I'm fairly certain I > > > If you put it that way, it does sound not correct, and I would agree > with you too :). > > But, IMO, it has to be more subjective than that. The comments removed, > IMO, add no additional value (the field name conveys the same > information). You can see that I left alone the comments that provide > some value. I did notice that you kept some of the comments. However, I am finding some of the removed ones to be useful too. I think if you try to look at this structure with the eyes of a newbie the comments do help you. e.g. di_btimelimit doesn't carry much meaning for me out of context, and the comment is helping me, at least. Not everyone is quite so moronic as me, though. ;) > > don't agree that's the case... > > > > I'm sorry for your trouble, but I think I should pass on this one. Do > > you agree? > > > > In effect, the code does look better (than I found it :) at the cost of > removal of redundant comments. > > If you still don't want to include, I would accept your decision. Thanks. I really would prefer to keep them. FWIW, the rest of your patch set doesn't appear to be adversely affected by doing so. Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
