|
|
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Lennart Sorensen
<lsorense@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:01:43PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> True, but it's not the style that is used here. You are of course free
>> to argue for using this version and even submit patches.
>
> I didn't check if it is covered by the codestyle or not for qemu.
>
> If your patch comment had said "Fix to follow code style" rather than
> "make natural order" I wouldn't have said anything. ÂNatural order in
> this case is a bad reason for the change. ÂFollowing code style is a
> good reason (even if the code style may then be questionable).
>
> If the code style doesn't cover it at all, I would say the change is
> horrible and shouldn't be done at all. ÂThe change even caused a compile
> failure briefly (and hence breaks git bisect) by being commited completely
> untested I suspect. ÂIf it didn't cause a compile failure it at least
> should have caused a serious warning.
Note that this could be avoided by not commiting the code in the first place,
but rather, sending it to the mailing list. Everybody should be sending code
to the mailing list, even maintainers.
Anthony is already doing that, and it greatly reduces the probability of getting
a broken bisect for broken patches.
--
Glauber Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
|
|