lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: Increase the line length limit from 80 to 100 colums
    From
    Date
    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.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-03 17:43    [W:0.095 / U:29.612 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site