On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> > Karl Fogel wrote:
> > > Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:
> > >
> > >> If blame information is really that important, we should scratch the
> > >> patch altogether. Otherwise I'd still rather opt for consistent style.
> > >>
> > >> I stumbled across this because Steve is looking into adding code to
> > >> one of the files in question, and we could not figure out the correct
> > >> style to use for new code.
> > >>
> > >> So I asked in IRC what style new code should use. Erik Huelsmann said
> > >> the project was aiming at keeping the style consistent within modules.
> > >> Since libsvn_ra's style is totally ambiguous, I created the patch to
> > >> make it consistent.
> > >>
> > >> So, for me, it's not about being tidy for the sake of it, but because
> > >> of the benefits consistency provides when adding or modying code.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I think consistency is worth it too. Maybe apply this after 1.5 is
> > > released?
> > >
> >
> > ... after which there will be no more backports?
> >
> > "A foolish consistency" etc. I vote we leave well enough alone.
>
> We reformatted *all* our sources (remember Subversion-with-space?). I
> really don't get you all (not you personally) keep talking about
> backporting problems. We're *not* a closed source project with 115
> variants for different customers we need to support until 2030; we
> only have 1 or 2 active release branches: the cost of backporting is
> only 2, not 115.
+1.
Especially since these are *not* rapidly changing files. We only
change them when we incompatibly alter the signatures of RA APIs, and
any backport of such a change is likely to be otherwise annoying
anyway.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
Received on 2008-03-03 20:44:58 CET