On 21/06/2008, at 5:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though the changes I've sent until now where small, I also
agree with
Loui, when he says the AUR is more in maintenance mode (IIRC there
where
already two attempts for AUR2, though I don't know much about their
current
state).
Being the main dev of the second attempt at AUR2, I'd like to know as
well :P.
I think sticking to coding conventions is a good idea. Developers
should be disciplined and strictly adhere to them, it really does make
maintenance easier. I'd be great if people also wrote doxygen/phpdoc
documentation to make maintenance and later development much, much
easier. It doesn't matter if the code won't be used by anyone else,
internal documentation is also very useful. Having said that, I don't
know if a lot of effort should be put into fixing up the current code
base (especially technical writing). I think everyone agrees that the
AUR needs a rewrite.
The problem, as I see it for someone who likes to send a patch, is,
that
you usually address a specific "problem" with a patch. Although
cleaning
the code makes always sense, it should IMHO be separated into separate
patch sets and not mixed with other patches in order to not blur the
"real" purpose of a patch.
I don't really see a problem with fixing up the code in terms of
conventions along with other changes, as long as only the lines of
code that would be changed either way are fixed up. If you go and
change a bunch of other code, then that really should be in a separate
patch. Of course when cherry-picking patches or something, it
sometimes is nicer to have very specific patches, so that it would be
possible to apply the "code standard adhering" patch to some other
branch.
