On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 12:25:30PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin 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. > > Signed-off-by: Christophe de Dinechin <dinec...@redhat.com> > --- > docs/spice_style.txt | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/spice_style.txt b/docs/spice_style.txt > index ae91f987..108a57a5 100644 > --- a/docs/spice_style.txt > +++ b/docs/spice_style.txt > @@ -436,3 +436,12 @@ Also in source (no header) files you must include > `config.h` at the beginning so > > #include "spice_server.h" > ---- > + > + > +Compilation > +----------- > + > +The source code should compile without warnings on all variants of GCC and > clang available. > +A patch may be rejected if it introduces new warnings. > +Warnings that appear over time due to improvements in compilers should be > fixed in dedicated patches. A patch should not mix warning fixes and other > changes.
> +Any patch may adjust whitespace (e.g. eliminate trailing whitespace). > Whitespace adjustments do not require specific patches. I believe this part was quite controversial, so I'd drop it for now. To be honest, the whole patch does not seem very useful to me, in my opinion it's mostly stating the obvious. Christophe
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spiceemail@example.com https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel