From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27144 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2014 17:56:27 -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 27132 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jan 2014 17:56:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 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-vb0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f43.google.com) (209.85.212.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:56:24 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p6so9122134vbe.2 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:56:22 -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=klwbMzM0d6Jw3r4UN5ucA8neCyax3K5Bl/g5VxJt+CI=; b=kdIqYWhaXosild/Ce+aYtwF8xi3aEJB6ohsKCrAT1eQqaKPwae6HVQJMrZfnZSGiM5 ccpAXyFRm5aGzVHiUsK4CnujTNrM95ZoX01XSxxIVuA0vVQOkgqdrl8hwkZHZlwmSZmC OckurjCNUYeQTP+RCnKKqm/AXEXiHzFk8ld+wttQ1NDNb/FO7gKHJvraay8p5bCDGvIo JoilOHKETkTIqfq03grcLjJU/Tn4L+6aIgWJo42T92kPvWhI0w4IglKhoN82vv7fUnvb hkRONJSDZ70E+fg/WtGej5BBtTBVprJwM65S6JmnrxLR/9BLIUt8uN+LwSXt4bS5Pe0P fUkA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUfLV7L938AmXd5s6uqbdqhRJj56wuW9/zxuS0OgMwgZt9ZfrR3Sr0/YAaLrjq4SdYtnO4qaMBzfpqCq/JBV2LEhW4PGeONnfxM5QJ0jmvALTnYsoV5J6sdbn+ezwHF+A+aA3dn8brR5cXOegsxWXA05jEAcPNfF6rQL0vSoQu9fVb5jcU9XbAsdu7qoVJERU2oW3OLgFHhCm+mWzCUIdKN0kOQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.88.204 with SMTP id b12mr67263465vcm.3.1389030982684; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:56:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.248.65 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:56:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140105040005.GA3802@adacore.com> References: <83bnzsw6ro.fsf@gnu.org> <20140105040005.GA3802@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:56:00 -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/msg00076.txt.bz2 [apologies for the resend] On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> AFAIK, that's because this is the default in Emacs's commands that >> manipulate ChangeLog entries. Here: >> >> (define-derived-mode change-log-mode text-mode "Change Log" >> "Major mode for editing change logs; like Indented Text mode. >> Prevents numeric backups and sets `left-margin' to 8 and `fill-column' to 74. >> New log entries are usually made with \\[add-change-log-entry] or \\[add-change-log-entry-other-window]. >> Each entry behaves as a paragraph, and the entries for one day as a page. >> Runs `change-log-mode-hook'. >> \n\\{change-log-mode-map}" >> (setq left-margin 8 >> fill-column 74 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >> indent-tabs-mode t >> tab-width 8 >> show-trailing-whitespace t) > > We can transparently override it, I think, since our ChangeLog entries have: > >> Local Variables: >> mode: change-log >> left-margin: 8 >> fill-column: 74 >> version-control: never >> coding: utf-8 >> End: > > (to be confirmed, since I am no longer an emacs user). > > That being said, and fwiw only, I subscribe to the idea that 80 > characters is a little bit on the long side. I think it's a good > idea to have one limit, and one limit only, but I'd prefer to > make it closer to 70 than 80 - maybe 74 could be a good compromise. > Ie, raise the soft-limit for the code to 74, leave the hard-limit > to 80, and thus keep ChangeLogs as is. 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). Vertical space usage is not unimportant, and comments like this: /* Some comment, ... mumble it. */ bug me when there's more than enough space to use one fewer line. But if it's just a soft limit, then at least I can avoid it in my own patches.