From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30203 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2014 20:21:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 30194 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jan 2014 20:21:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ve0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-ve0-f173.google.com) (209.85.128.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:21:29 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id oz11so1652912veb.4 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 12:21:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3WZtp+OkQ3sxowXr+cF4uPm4Nz73KNuKmUWt0MKFDPc=; b=ZWx8BjudEyzM3FTXEluK3s2/WG10yuM3xNJvzmRLkF4ygPsdkwSh0bZu/NiMHd8Ja9 3e2u7FoOpLINhTZGQLmDCqhHqQYRIqexGFzq2Q6JnjYaXC5jnHDb4dt0mbnN3JBnv5UA yjhO5IgGmlxL/vblsnd0bYQEGYSywx9WwAX1RUgB2L0JdrfvF+mzjAgbV8ohY9Lk71dD OqO8lZgHh6cx1an6bo5VB6oy1uhglilhryWxjDAPPwUMTVDDSw0rud+7rOnJXb0BENmb CxNdwr4DebGj3cVr/HbEgWY3JwqKOUKza8BJ9kflM8Pd+0ZKgeG13kEihPluTZc3+sdL KfWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5o7+NZDxqoxsSM+iJeeIg8oR39fX6wskMPKTKC0ZpvBij3k7UREWRGMmkdv0r4ZhezXk4Jmd9JZ45aHRiESPWqNeoAYXRH2fj2p57jHRfto4ISM57awww5frTvZDmYJxSsSKU2FkVWD529X0frnpooRRi2wAIsxmoyYAjOHyr+5sc2B5zxWkrhIVJ3O3wPNdaR7kTOlIwPP18jG6qzLAjtnq51w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.181.165 with SMTP id dx5mr19023429vec.19.1389212486637; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 12:21:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.116.174 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:21:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140108114544.GN3802@adacore.com> References: <83bnzsw6ro.fsf@gnu.org> <20140105040005.GA3802@adacore.com> <20140108114544.GN3802@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Change coding style rule: 80 column "hard limit" for ChangeLogs From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> That would not achieve the goal of one limit only, >> unless ChangeLogs have a hard limit of 80, and 74 is the soft limit. >> >> [I'm treating "hard" as "do not violate unless there's a compelling reason", >> and "soft" as a guideline. btw, I can no longer think of that word without also >> thinking of Pirates of the Caribbean. :-)] >> >> > Other than the opinion above, it's not really all that important to me. >> > So I'm good with whatever reasonable limit the group decides. We just >> > need to make sure we document the decision, with reference to the >> > discussion. >> >> I'm not overly fond of anything below 80 (well, 79, but I certainly >> don't reject patches that use 80). > > I'm really easy, so I don't mind your proposal. > > Just for the record, to me, "soft" means "stay within the limit unless > you have a reasonable reason to exceed", while "hard" means "do not > exceed unless you just cannot do otherwise". As you can see, slightly > stronger barriers. But I know also that it's really nitpicking, so > I tend to worry too much about soft violations when reviewing patches, > making that soft barrier a little softer :-). But I pay attention to > that limit myself when modifying the code. So how about a 74 soft limit and 80 hard limit for everything (modulo things like .exp files where we try to keep things under 80 but some lines are just long and best left as is). soft = "stay within the limit unless you have a reasonable reason to exceed, and we're not nitpicky on what reasonable is" hard = "do not exceed unless you just cannot do otherwise, and while there are exceptions, we are quite nitpicky on this one" Even that wording doesn't preclude different interpretations. I'm happy to tweak it. The high order bits for me are the same numbers for everything, and not being nitpicky on adherence to the soft limit. If there are no objections, I will tweak your coding style cheat sheet wiki (just trying to save you the trouble, it's your page, feel free to edit as desired), and update other docs (the CodingStandards wiki doesn't exist, I'll create it and add something to get it going).