On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Richard Harding <rick.hard...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012, Robert Collins wrote: > >> So - who would be happy (and who would not) with a LOC rule like the one >> above? >> >> -Rob > > So I'm officially in the "wait and see" boat on this. It strikes me that a > lot of our overall goals of modularity, components, etc are very likely to > increase LoC just because it's the nature of splitting things. I don't have > any hard numbers though, so perhaps this is a logical fallacy I've got in > my head and I'd be curious to see how it works out.
We could use cyclomatic complexity instead of LOC, but we would need slightly more tooling to support that. > I do think that just having this as a code review bullet point is good > though. It's much easier to have the discussion during a code review with > the current policy than it might have been a little bit ago. If we adopt a policy like the one under discussion, it should certainly go into the "things discussed during a review" bucket. MPs can require sloccount output just as they require lint details today. -- Benji York _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
