This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Change coding style rule: 80 column "hard limit" for ChangeLogs
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:45:44 +0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Change coding style rule: 80 column "hard limit" for ChangeLogs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt261q0r886 dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <83bnzsw6ro dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140105040005 dot GA3802 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22Tyt-r7CgtDL-f+k_MeWxfrwZrvpE8+dyJGh=WC=tK1gw at mail dot gmail dot com>
> That would not achieve the goal of one limit only,
> unless ChangeLogs have a hard limit of 80, and 74 is the soft limit.
>
> [I'm treating "hard" as "do not violate unless there's a compelling reason",
> and "soft" as a guideline. btw, I can no longer think of that word without also
> thinking of Pirates of the Caribbean. :-)]
>
> > Other than the opinion above, it's not really all that important to me.
> > So I'm good with whatever reasonable limit the group decides. We just
> > need to make sure we document the decision, with reference to the
> > discussion.
>
> I'm not overly fond of anything below 80 (well, 79, but I certainly
> don't reject patches that use 80).
I'm really easy, so I don't mind your proposal.
Just for the record, to me, "soft" means "stay within the limit unless
you have a reasonable reason to exceed", while "hard" means "do not
exceed unless you just cannot do otherwise". As you can see, slightly
stronger barriers. But I know also that it's really nitpicking, so
I tend to worry too much about soft violations when reviewing patches,
making that soft barrier a little softer :-). But I pay attention to
that limit myself when modifying the code.
--
Joel