Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: Increase the line length limit from 80 to 100 colums | From | "" <> | Date | Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:39:38 -0800 |
| |
96 might be a better limit. Why? Because 80 and 96 are the easiest line lengths to achieve on a printer. 80 is typically the default, but with a 12 cpi font you get 96.
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>Hello, > >On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 11:07:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> >> > > If we want to increase the standard to (say) 96 cols then >> > > fine, I'd be happy with that. But until we do that we >> > > should not create such a gruesome mess for those who use 80 >> > > cols. >> > >> > The kernel has *already* become a gruesome mess for 80 col >> > users long ago. That was the main reason why I stopped using >> > 80 col terminals two years ago ... >> > >> > So lets stop the pretense. > >I don't know. In my experience, a lot of code, especially core part, >mostly follows 80 col limit. It shouldn't be too difficult to write >up a script to count >80col lines in different parts of the kernel. > >> [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: Increase the line length limit from 80 to >100 colums >> >> The overwhelming majority of kernel developers have stopped >> using 80 col terminals years ago. >> >> As far as I'm aware I was the last regular kernel contributor >> who still used a standard VGA text console, but both text >> consoles and using them to read the kernel source code has >> become increasingly gruesome years ago so I switched to a wider >> terminal two years ago. > >People usually place multiple windows horizontally so it's not like >all those extra pixels go wasted. 80col might even have the benefit >of giving overall higher density in terms of pixel usage. > >> Worse than that, people are actively uglifying the kernel code >> to fit things into 80 cols mechanically. They are using >> checkpatch and are interpreting the 80 col warnings the wrong >> way again and again, sucking up reviewer bandwidth that could be >> utilized better. >> >> So lets increase the limit to 100 cols - this is a nice round >> limit, and it also happens to match with most developer xterm >> sizes. Code that goes over 100 cols for no good reasons will be >> arguably something worth fixing. (100 cols is also arguably >> closer to various brain limits such as vision of field and >> resolution restrictions, so we'll likely not have to increase >> this limit for a couple of million years, for all retro human >> genome users.) > >That said, yeah, 80col is a pain in the ass and lessening the pressure >a bit might make it a non-problem and 100 is one of the nicer numbers >which aren't power of two. > >For me, the biggest reason to stick to 80col has been that, while >being widely disliked, it still was the most common limit people were >using and consistency tends to be more beneficial on these issues. If >we're gonna do this, and I hope we do, let's proactively encourage / >enforce it - ie. let's collectively nag so that 100col quickly becomes >the standard. > >Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > >Thanks. > >-- >tejun
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| |