From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 719 invoked by alias); 4 May 2011 18:38:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 671 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2011 18:38:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2011 18:38:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 6358 invoked from network); 4 May 2011 18:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 May 2011 18:38:42 -0000 Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 18:39:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Mike Stump Cc: Michael Witten , Gerald Pfeifer , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Docs: extend.texi: Remove trailing blanks from lines Message-ID: <20110504183841.GL23480@codesourcery.com> References: <378e16b9-5d40-427c-8b4e-00700b2ad30c-mfwitten@gmail.com> <92C39AE1-05A1-42BB-BDF5-51A9B04B806E@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <92C39AE1-05A1-42BB-BDF5-51A9B04B806E@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 3, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Michael Witten wrote: > > To what do we owe this tradition other than laziness? > > By flat out rejecting style fixing patches, you preserve the > annotations made by vc-blame (svn blame). That's the only reason that > I am aware of. Laziness can't be the reason to reject the hard work > of someone that wants to clean up the code. > > Like others, I don't find that compelling enough personally. I think accepting such style patches for documentation for something like this carries less downsides that doing the same for code. The reason is that I assume that documentation tends to be added in bulk, so if you see blame output that looks like: r178 ahacker r178 ahacker r178 ahacker r509372 bhacker r178 ahacker r178 ahacker r178 ahacker it's pretty obvious what's going on. :) Whereas seeing similar things in code could hide quite a bit. Deleting end-of-line whitespace in docs seems pretty safe. Re-formatting complete paragraphs of documentation possibly less so. -Nathan