[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:25:17PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > Ordering include based on length of line minimize the
> > risk of merge conflicts.
> > If people just add new includes in the bottom of the list you
> > are certain that a merge conflit happens.
> >
> > This scheme is starting to be used in several places with the
> > primary advocates being David Miller and Ingo.
> >
> > It is getting used both for includes _and_ for local variables.
> >
> Personally I'd prefer alphabetic order, sorting based on length isn't a
> complete ordering. Nearly all editors can sort alphabetically at the
> push of a key.


FWIW, the real problem is that we have far too many includes in a typical
file; the ordering wouldn't matter if there would be 4-5 #include in
foo.c. Inventing elaborate policies to cope with that crap instead of
addressing the root cause (namely, cut'n'paste approach to includes) is
rather pointless...

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-28 23:41    [W:0.118 / U:7.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site