> On 14 Feb 2018, at 14:37, Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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.
I wish :-) Also, puzzled by the patch being “controversial” yet “stating the obvious”? > > Christophe _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
