> On 9 May 2018, at 15:49, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Tom, >> >> In message <20180509114828.gg12...@bill-the-cat.ec.rr.com> you wrote: >>> >>> We should go and update [1] to note some special exemptions to the rule. >> >> I'm not happy about this. >> >>> I see you missed out on the SPDX thread over here: >>> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-May/327544.html and repeat >> >> Marek already said what was on my mind, and got ignored. >> Would it have changed anything if I had posted another complaint? > > Ignored, no. Counts as a veto? No. And if you had chimed in too, I > don't know if that would have gotten anyone else to also chime in. > Looking over the thread again there's two yes votes, two no votes, two > people that chimed in on the thread but didn't express a yes or no to > the change, and then no one else has said anything. The main thing I > see currently is a whole lot of ambivalence.
Although I am ambivalent to the underlying discussion, I have strong opinions regarding the language/standard-compliance... My vote goes to C++ comments and upgrading the language standard to C99 (or rather gnu99, as our code uses extensions). This will (at least somewhat) match how the default C compliance level in GCC has evolved over the GCC 6 through GCC 8 release cycles. And while we’re at it, we should allow "for (int i = 0; …”-style C99 declaration of loop iterations within the loop-head. > >> I'm doing now, and apparently I get ignored, too. So what exactly >> is your argument? >> >>> myself, I see it as more worthwhile to (a) follow the kernel in this >>> area (for both tooling and consistency and ease of development for our >>> overlapping community) (b) save space (in just about every conversion we >>> went from 2 lines to 1 line). Thanks! >> >> OK, so you decided, and any additional discussion is futile... > > It's not futile, but here's as best I can tell, the arguments: > Against Linux Kernel style SPDX tags: > - Don't like // style comments > - Visually inconsistent / jarring > > For Linux Kernel style SPDX tags: > - Has higher visibility. > - Has tooling to enforce correctly formatted tags. > - Shorter (enforced as a single line comment means we don't have people > spacing around it). > - Consistent expectations for our overlapping developer community. > > Things that could be taken, without changing overall formatting: > - Logic operators for exceptions/dual-license/etc > > If people speak up against the change now that we've done it, we could > revert and then add in the "LICENSE-A OR LICENSE-B" change. Thanks! > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
