Re: Throw some low-level C scutwork at me

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andy Lester <andy(at)petdance(dot)com>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Throw some low-level C scutwork at me
Date: 2009-05-01 19:54:22
Message-ID: 49FB536E.5060700@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andy Lester wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Regardless, I
>> agree with Tom that the idea of having decorators of any kind in source
>> or docs is a bad idea.
>
> Why is it a bad idea? I don't understand the downside of a line or
> two at the bottom of a source file.

Because it becomes one more maintenance task we don't need.

>
>
>> That being said, there is no reason why we can have a section of the
>> wiki that has .rc files for respective editors and environments that
>> conform to .Org coding conventions.
>
>
> I've always found it preferable to have the editors enforce the coding
> standards for us, without relying on the coder do anything on his
> end. I'd rather that volunteers, especially new volunteers, spend
> their time and brain cycles thinking about code, not messing with
> config files.
>
>

FWIW I had a quick look at two other OS projects: the linux kernel and
the apache httpd server. Apache is simple - there's one vim line and no
vi lines in the whole source. The linux kernel is a mess. There are a
couple of hundred files with inconssistent mode lines. Most have none
(and there are thousands).

So we're hardly alone in not doing it the way you're suggesting.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-01 20:00:09 Re: Throw some low-level C scutwork at me
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-01 19:50:29 Re: Table data exclusion patch for pg_dump