From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Dec 20 03:45:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11628
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 03:45:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA11612;
          Sat, 20 Dec 1997 03:45:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.6.9) id WAA04443; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 22:39:27 +1100
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 22:39:27 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199712201139.WAA04443@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, jb@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au
Subject: Re: Bruce vandalism again
Cc: bde@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, grog@lemis.com, julian@whistle.com
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>If the use of the __P macro in new code is discouraged, then FreeBSD is
>not trying to keep K&R compatibility (like NetBSD insists on). So we are
>*encouraging* ANSI prototypes. Then (IMO) code that is being edited (for
>other reasons) should have its function definitions changed to ANSI style
>at the same time, regardless of how much code is regarded as new according
>to this silly statement.....

A great way to enlarge 200000-line diffs between NetBSD and FreeBSD for code
that isn't really different :-(.

>>      In general code can be considered ``new code'' when it makes up about 50%
>>      or more of the file[s] involved.  This is enough to break precedents in
>>      the existing code and use the current style guidelines.
>
>Now is that 50% of the code that makes up the function definitions or do
>we have to count all the other lines of code too?!

All lines.  I would only count significant changes like rewriting vm.

Bruce