Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:37:40 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [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.
*shrug*
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...
| |