Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
> *You* are telling my that; it's *your* opinion and nothing else. It's
I saw a review comment that points out that the continuation lines
do not align, and you refused to say "ah, thanks for spotting" and
reroll [*1*], so even I do not want to do so in general, I had to
play the role of the arbiter.
My take on these style issues is this:
* People made mistakes in the past while doing real work. Big
news: contributors and reviewers are not perfect.
* They survived to this day because we do not do tree-wide "style
fixes" for the sake of style fix, in order to avoid clashing with
real work in flight.
* Existing mistakes are not an excuse for adding new mistakes of
the same kind, especially when they are pointed out during the
review (this is not limited to "style issues").
I do not think I would reject a patch with minor style bugs like
unaligned continuation lines, if it were a patch that does real
But a "style cleanups" patch that introduces new instances of style
breakage is a different matter. It is clear that the original
die ("Encountered signed tag %s; use ",
"--signed-tags=<mode> to handle it.",
wanted the opening double-quotes of two lines and the "sha1" at the
beginning of the third line to align. I see that is the local style
a "style cleanup" change should follow.
A patch that cleans up styles in preparation for a real work (like
this one) is a rare and precious occasion for us to really clean up
accumulated wart. I do not want to see existing mistakes from other
unrelated parts of the codebase that have not been cleaned up as an
excuse to waste that rare occasion to do a good job of cleaning up.
So that is the arbiter's decision. Call it *my* opinion or whatever
you like; it does not change anything.
*1* That would have ended this thread without wasting everybody's
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html