Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Tue Feb 18 15:01:53 MST 2014

On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 17:42 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:09:12AM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > 
> > ... our practice for coding rules is that we try to make
> > *new* code adhere to them. Existing code can be adapted
> > as it is touched. We do not usually walk over the existing
> > code and do changes just to make it adhere to the guidelines.
> > Doing this has several downsides:
> > 
> > - It blurs code ownership.
> > - It makes backports harder.
> > - It is seductive to do tons of scripted changes
> >   instead of concentrating on real work.
> > 
> > So as a consequence, while I do in principle agree
> > with the result of the patches, I am sceptical
> > towards this change.
> If this were a larger, more invasive change set
> I would agree. But having looked over this change:
> a). it isn't really invasive (and so won't blur
> ownership).
> b). IMHO the patchset is in the same vein as changes that
> Volker, myself and others do every day to tidy
> up the code and make it more maintainable.
> Some people just find it easier to do things by scripts
> rather than by hand :-).
> Having said that, as it *is* merely a code cleanup I
> can also live without it of course if people
> disagree.

I totally agree.  I think we have gone over things enough, and it would
be great if we could get the changes pushed. 


Did I see your review on the second set of patches?


Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT

More information about the samba-technical mailing list