From owner-cvs-all Wed Sep 5 8:46:18 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.92.13.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215A637B40D; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.5/8.11.1) id f85Fjnr96217; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:45:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:45:49 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Bruce Evans Cc: Garrett Wollman , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include/arpa tftp.h Message-ID: <20010905084549.A95963@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org References: <20010904185643.A78975@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010905203608.K22645-100000@alphplex.bde.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010905203608.K22645-100000@alphplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:39:34PM +1000 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:39:34PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > Log: > > > > style(9) the structure definitions. > > > Was this *really* necessary? > > > I thought we had a policy against doing broad sweeps of > > > non-substantive changes like this. > > > > Yes it was -- we were so confused (partically do to your commit to > > style.9) that one could not figure out what was right. Now enough of the > > key places to look for style guidlines have been fixed. I don't plan on > > sweaping any more of the tree to just fix this. > > The existence of both in old code means that they were both right. The CSRG people can make mistakes too -- just like we do. Several of our headers I cleaned up used _both_ and . You guys keep pointing to the single kernel header that was inconsistent with the others in struct definition style. I looked at many headers in my CSRG SCCS repo. The vast majority were "structfoo {". > "struct\t.*{" does seem to be the least normal form although it is used > in the oldest code (proc.h...), but you shouldn't have changed it while > we are still discussing this. What more was there to discuss? This issue is one that is pretty easy to decide based on facts. When there is a 3:1 ratio of to in our own code (and as you pointed out most of those were due to makesyscalls.sh. (the ratio was higher in the CSRG code). -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message