On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 15:53:35 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 02:18:17PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:56 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
[...] > > > Incrementally converting VIR_ALLOC + VIR_AUTOFREE at the same > > > time, makes more sense stylewise, as then within the scope of a > > > single method we'd be consistent. > > > > I see your point about backports being more painful when you have > > a bunch of unrelated changes mixed in, but I would still prefer if > > we converted everything at once and at the same time introduced a > > suitable syntax-check rule preventing more instances of whatever > > function we just removed all callers of from creeping back in, or > > actually just dropping the function altogether. > > > > Doing the conversion incrementally will IMHO result in dragging it > > for much longer, causing more pain in the long run than ripping the > > bandaid would. > > There's really not any significant real world pain from mixing the > two styles. It is visually distasteful but doesn't cause any functional > problems at runtime, nor complexity for maintainers. A large conversion > over the whole codebase does cause very significant pain in conflicts > for anyone cherry picking patches. That is just not a net win overall. > I'll take visually mixed styles any day over creating patch conflicts > in backports. I don't see how. If the end-goal is to convert everything to the new form you will get into potential pain/conflicts sooner or later anyways. Or the other option is to leave it as a half-done lingering refactor and that doesn't help either. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
