[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:0.038 / U:17.208 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site