s3-talloc Change TALLOC_ZERO_P() to talloc_zero()

[Michael Adam]

Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:39:40PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:06:28PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:52:35PM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I'd say yes, but not in one single commit.
> > > > 
> > > > It's also possible to do one subdir per day or so,
> > > > that would also make possible conflicts easier to resolve for others.
> > > > And it makes cherry picking for backports much easier.
> > > 
> > > Ok, I'll start doing it as a background hobby :-).
> > 
> > Question -- why??
> > 
> > I mean, True/TRUE/true, that's kindof ugly. But it does not
> > change anything functional-wise. It just clutters git blame.
> 
> For the same reason your hobby is cleaning up non-blank lines :-).

Volker might argue that changing annotation of non-empty blank
lines does not really spoil anyone's code ownership. And that
git even has logic for ignoring whitespace-only changes in blame
detection. But on the other hand side, the change of True->true
and so on is a process of unification that does more than just
cosmetic changes. I agree that generally we should be cautious
with changes like these that are not really necessary. Won't
insist, but I would also like to have the uniform bool values.
And what would be a better time than now that so much is changing
through the unifications...

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20110623/a14f1c25/attachment.pgp>