Hello, On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 4:32 PM Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey folks, > > I overeagerly reviewed and submitted a change[1] lately, that set the > column limit for our C code to 96. My reasoning was that we already > live a "soft" limit of 80 chars and that tools shouldn't complain about > every single 8x-chars line (personally, I find this quite annoying > during review). What I missed is that people use the limit to format > code automatically, resulting in less line breaks, even if they'd make > sense for readability.
I find tools complaining on 8x-char lines rather annoying as well. Especially when a bunch of lines get a warning each, and gerrit's web interface slows down to a complete halt. > Do we want to enforce a single editor / IDE + configuration for coreboot > contributions? For instance, Vim is quite configurable and helpful when > writing code. This could make all tools for later processing unneces- > sary. IMHO this will cause more trouble than it will solve. I use a mixture of nvim and Geany so I wouldn't mind that much, but other people may use a completely different editor/IDE and I guess they would be rather reluctant to change just to contribute to coreboot. > Do we want to enforce a single tool, e.g. clang-format, that does the > job for us after editing a source file? > > The above, even if that implies a new coding style that we might not > be used to? One thing that I *really* hate w.r.t. tools is when they want to do something in a specific way and don't allow manual changes. IMHO this doesn't sound like a good idea. However, I understand that manually maintaining everything in shape is a daunting task, and why some people would want an automated tool. > Do we want a combination of such a tool and check-patch? For instance, > clang-format has a feature to ignore broken lines. This could then be > handled by check-patch, to allow more complex rules. > > Do we just want to keep check-patch and let authors / their editors > format the code? Isn't this what we have now? IMHO I find checkpatch warnings useful, though some code style things such as CamelCase don't get caught at all by it, and are sometimes merged in. > Do we want to rely (solely) on reviewers for format checking? I believe some of the current checks are rather useful, so I would leave them in place. Some other style nits are better judged by humans, though. > Do we want to encourage reviewers to educate their fellows on code > style (for instance, wrt. line length, less indentation levels, shorter, > more meaningful identifiers, etc.)? If we get to agree on one code style, yes. > Nico > > [1] https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/31651 Do note this is my personal, uneducated opinion on the matter. Best regards, Angel Pons _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
