From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757287AbcHYVGP (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:06:15 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:56819 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754559AbcHYVFJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:05:09 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org;kvm@vger.kernel.org;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:04:58 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Julia Lawall Cc: SF Markus Elfring , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Christian =?UTF-8?B?Qm9ybnRyw6RnZXI=?= , David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Walter Harms Subject: Re: Software evolution around scripts for the semantic patch langugae In-Reply-To: References: <82b84c9c-38a4-4d17-910f-312668dbae01@users.sourceforge.net> <20160825181009.381411d9.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz =?UTF-8?B?R2VzY2jDpGZ0c2bDvGhydW5nOg==?= Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: =?UTF-8?B?QsO2Ymxpbmdlbg==?= Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16082521-0012-0000-0000-0000044B5F0F X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16082521-0013-0000-0000-000015261758 Message-Id: <20160825230458.7fc85c66.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-08-25_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1608250234 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > Or some close variant. > > > > I have got more script variants evolving in my software collection. > > > > There are further approaches available from various contributors, > > aren't there? > > What she is asking for is a concise and precise decription of what you > have done. If you have some other variants, eg controlling where the > sizeof argument is (left or right of *), you don't necessarily have to > include it in the patch, if such a rule was not used for the specific > patch anyway. *nod* If I see a patch that says "I've run the following cocchinelle patch to perform $TRANSFORMATION, and here's the result", I can be reasonably sure that the result will be what is intended to be changed in the first place (and I can assess whether the change makes sense at all.) If I see only the resulting patch, I won't know whether you have performed the changes manually (and possibly introduced bugs, as happens to all of us.) Moreover, a good semantic patch is useful to others as well and might even be reused in other contexts that have similar requirements. You really lose value if you don't publish them. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:04:58 +0000 Subject: Re: Software evolution around scripts for the semantic patch langugae Message-Id: <20160825230458.7fc85c66.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <82b84c9c-38a4-4d17-910f-312668dbae01@users.sourceforge.net> <20160825181009.381411d9.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: SF Markus Elfring , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Christian =?UTF-8?B?Qm9ybnRyw6RnZXI=?= , David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Walter Harms On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > Or some close variant. > > > > I have got more script variants evolving in my software collection. > > > > There are further approaches available from various contributors, > > aren't there? > > What she is asking for is a concise and precise decription of what you > have done. If you have some other variants, eg controlling where the > sizeof argument is (left or right of *), you don't necessarily have to > include it in the patch, if such a rule was not used for the specific > patch anyway. *nod* If I see a patch that says "I've run the following cocchinelle patch to perform $TRANSFORMATION, and here's the result", I can be reasonably sure that the result will be what is intended to be changed in the first place (and I can assess whether the change makes sense at all.) If I see only the resulting patch, I won't know whether you have performed the changes manually (and possibly introduced bugs, as happens to all of us.) Moreover, a good semantic patch is useful to others as well and might even be reused in other contexts that have similar requirements. You really lose value if you don't publish them.