On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Diego Biurrun (2016-09-07 09:26:20) > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Quoting Diego Biurrun (2016-09-06 15:54:08) > > > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:02:40PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/tests/checkasm/audiodsp.c > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ > > > > > + > > > > > +#include <math.h> > > > > > +#include <string.h> > > > > > +#include <stdio.h> > > > > > +#include <stdlib.h> > > > > > > > > nit: order > > > > > > > > > +#include "libavcodec/audiodsp.h" > > > > > + > > > > > +#include "libavutil/common.h" > > > > > +#include "libavutil/intreadwrite.h" > > > > > + > > > > > +#include "checkasm.h" > > > > > > > > libavutil headers before libavcodec headers > > > > > > Seriously, this is absurd. I agree that it's good to not have the > > > headers ordered completely randomly, so guidelines such as > > > - grouping system/our headers separately > > > - ordering alphabetically within a group > > > are sane and reasonable. But having enforced rules beyond that is just > > > ridiculous and serves no useful purpose beyond annoying people. > > > > As usual, I didn't make up the rules, contrary to what people believe. > > > > https://wiki.libav.org/CodingStyle/HeaderOrdering > > What is that wiki page supposed to prove? Some people added text to it, > yes. But I don't remember there ever being a general consensus for > having such rules. On the contrary, I remember complaining to you in the > past that having such rules is ridiculous.
I don't remember. You are complaining to the wrong person. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
