> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 10:21 +0100, Victor Toso wrote:
> > Hey,
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:13:21AM +0100, Lukáš Hrázký wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 04:02 -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Christophe de Dinechin <dinec...@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The objective of these guidelines is that:
> > > > > - We avoid introducing new warnings
> > > > > - We know how to fix old ones
> > > > > - We don't have to isolate whitespace changes when submitting
> > > > > patches,
> > > > > i.e. someone who use tools that automatically strip whitespaces and
> > > > > therefore "repairs" earlier errors should not be punished for it.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't agree with the automatic tool, patches should not
> > > > contain extra changes unless they fix space changes while changing
> > > > these lines for other reasons.
> > > > I'll personally accept single patches fixing the spaces.
> > >
> > > I'm with Frediano here. If you want to automatically fix whitespace
> > > errors, you can do it in a separate commit without much effort?
> > >
> > > I can also go right now and fix all trailing whitespaces with a bash
> > > oneliner, submit the patch and we have a moot point here? :)
> > Well, it was nacked before :)
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2016-May/029603.html
> What is the reasoning behind the nack?
> I'd rather have a style-only commit than to fight the bad indentation
> manually and possibly have unrelated whitespace changes in another
> By the way, mine got acked :D
Depends on many cases. You don't want spurious changes to make harder to
look at the history for instance (that is a point for Nack).
The patch is not fixing anything or adding new feature (another for Nack).
On the other hand applied to code not changed for a long period (where is
unlikely to have to dig the history) or code with small history (where
is faster to skip in any case) changes.
Being style it depends also on personal opinions.
Spice-devel mailing list