Xiang, Ok. see your point. It is valid and true the new changes do not add to the problem.
I just do not agree with the way of contributing. I look at it as if I touch a file, I take ownership and pride in making it better. We would not be being having this discussion if we had a tool that works and can format the codebase. But we are where we are. So why don't you call a vote? On 2020/03/08 04:13:11, Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:46 AM David Sidrane <david.sidr...@nscdg.com> wrote: > > > > -1 It is Not inline with long term goal and a violation of the Inviolable > > > > David, > No new violation here, the code modified in patch still must pass the > coding style check, the tool just ignored the unmodified part. > > > o Expediency is not a justification for violating the coding standard. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Xiang Xiao [mailto:xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2020 10:11 AM > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org > > Subject: Should we relax precheck a little bit? > > > > Hi all, > > The precheck ensure the whole file content comform to the coding > > style, this strategy has several problems: > > 1.Many source file in mainline already violate the coding style > > 2.nxstyle frequently generate the false alarm in the current stage > > How about we let precheck just ensure the modified line don't violate > > the coding standards? > > I am asking this question because: > > 1.The change in PR 471 has a very good shape: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/471/files > > but the whole file precheck complain there are many errors: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/471/checks?check_run_id=492244725 > > It is unfair to require the contributor to fix the issue not made by > > them. > > 2.Most PR will fail at precheck stage due to item 1 and then block the > > more important build test. > > > > Thanks > > Xiang >
