Re: [Dri-devel] Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle fixes for drm_agpsupport

From: Philip Brown <phil@bolthole.com>
To: dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
	Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
	davej@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle fixes for drm_agpsupport
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030814114340.A48492@bolthole.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030814144711.GA5926@work.bitmover.com>; from lm@bitmover.com on Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:47:11AM -0700

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:47:11AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> ...
> Indeed I have.  And there is a reason that we have a policy at BitMover
> where "formatting changes" are prohibited and we make people redo their
> changesets until they get them right.
> 
> In other words, you are welcome to write a revision control system
> which can look through the formatting changes and give you the semantic
> knowledge that you want.  We'd love to see how it is done and then do
> it in BitKeeper :)

You should allow for changes that are "formatting change only", with no
actual code structural change.
You could pass the results through stage 1 of gcc, and only allow it if the
parsing tree is identical.

I was originally going to suggest just passing it through "indent", but
that would not come out right, if someone added braces to clarify a
one-line conditional.