|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Typo: llvm*.cpp files identified as llvm*.c|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:49:46PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-01-23 14:43:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> The function name comments are similar, though less consistent so I'm
>> too lazy to write a script to find one that is actually wrong (with
>> which to trigger Andres's let's-delete-them-all response :-D).
I am not sure if anybody uses them for anything automatically, still I
find myself from time to time looking at them to remember on which
path the file is located when opened in emacs. So I still like having
those references, perhaps I am just a minority. Being in the minority
is usually a cool thing, still if you wish ripping all these out it's
not like I'll cry for that, so please feel free to do as you see fit.
> I wish function comment styles were more consistent, but there's *SO*
> many styles, that I think it's hard to nicely automate it. And it's much
> more likely to cause conflicts than removing IDENTIFICATION. So...
Yes, I am usually more annoyed by the inconsistency of the function
upper blocks than IDENTIFICATION... So I just try to stick with
keeping any new code consistent with the surroundings. Making
back-patching harder than it is now is not really appealing, so I'd be
-1 for doing any consistency work. Patching six branches for the same
patch is already a lot of work.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2019-01-23 03:41:11||Re: A few new options for vacuumdb|
|Previous Message||Kuroda, Hayato||2019-01-23 02:12:15||RE: Log a sample of transactions|