[Spice-devel] [PATCH v3 10/11] Add guidelines about warnings and whitespaces

[Christophe de Dinechin]

> On 14 Feb 2018, at 14:37, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 12:25:30PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>> From: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin at redhat.com>
>> 
>> The objective of these guidelines is that:
>> - We avoid introducing new warnings
>> - We know how to fix old ones
>> - We don't have to isolate whitespace changes when submitting patches,
>>  i.e. someone who use tools that automatically strip whitespaces and
>>  therefore "repairs" earlier errors should not be punished for it.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin at redhat.com>
>> ---
>> docs/spice_style.txt | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/docs/spice_style.txt b/docs/spice_style.txt
>> index ae91f987..108a57a5 100644
>> --- a/docs/spice_style.txt
>> +++ b/docs/spice_style.txt
>> @@ -436,3 +436,12 @@ Also in source (no header) files you must include `config.h` at the beginning so
>> 
>> #include "spice_server.h"
>> ----
>> +
>> +
>> +Compilation
>> +-----------
>> +
>> +The source code should compile without warnings on all variants of GCC and clang available.
>> +A patch may be rejected if it introduces new warnings.
>> +Warnings that appear over time due to improvements in compilers should be fixed in dedicated patches. A patch should not mix warning fixes and other changes.
> 
> 
>> +Any patch may adjust whitespace (e.g. eliminate trailing whitespace). Whitespace adjustments do not require specific patches.
> 
> I believe this part was quite controversial, so I'd drop it for now. To
> be honest, the whole patch does not seem very useful to me, in my
> opinion it's mostly stating the obvious.

I wish :-) Also, puzzled by the patch being “controversial” yet “stating the obvious”?


> 
> Christophe