| Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:48:23 +0100
| From: Sonic <sonic at dreadserver.com>
| On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:10:51 +0200, Brian Foster <blf at blf.utvinternet.ie> wrote:
| >[ ... ]
| > apologies if I'm coming across as a bit strident,
| > but besides just returning from the pub ;-) the
| > tendency to conflate the conformance of source code
| > to some stone tablet with the code's functionality
| > and quality is one of my "Hot Buttons".
| That's cool Brian,
| Our group is new and I was just looking to make things
| easier from the get-go. We've never before seen each
| other's code and there will (hopefully) be others from out
| there in Internet land who contribute. I would like if they
| used the conventions we're used to if they contribute. This
| is why I'd like something concrete to link to. I do
| think this is important though but your experience may
| differ. I'm just trying to follow a set of principals I
| think make sense and will make life easier.
I understand. but please allow me to argue the 3-rule
approach still works: the main issue (in yer case)
seems to be "existing code". it sounds like you don't
have any. in which case, Yes, find a stone table.
treat it as yer existing code (i.e., the style that is
to be copied). the three rules now kick in:
3. follow the existing code;
else 2. it's Ok if the coders and reviewers _agree_ it's Ok;
and 1. all reasonable exceptions are allowed.
also, notice this is evolutionary — it adapts to yer
experiences (is not cast in concrete) — since agreed
deviation to existing code establish an accepted new
body of existing code. so, over time, it works itself
into a form everyone can live with. (something stone
tablets tend not to do (in my experience).)
and to be absolutely clear on one thing: I'm not
saying (and have tried to never imply) style doesn't
matter. of course it does! however, neither style
_conformance_ nor _non_conformance_ is the same as
_quality_. doing both — conforming unless there
is a good reason not to — helps quality (especially,
perhaps, when people agree quality, not what a stone
table says, is more important).
FLOSS has an advantage here (IM(H?)O): many eyeballs
and nominally open discussion; i.e., the code really
is reviewed. but it also means you may get pedants
who insist there is a problem because of some obscure
clause in the stone table. but again, this is where
the 3-rules approach helps: a pedant raises an issue,
someone(s) else (eventually, hopefully) looks into it,
and then either there's a rational discussion and
agreement, or else pedant's point is simply accepted
and the code changed.
Experienced (>25 yrs) kernel/software Eng: | Brian Foster Montpellier,
• Unix, embedded, &tc; • Linux; • doc; | blf at utvinternet.ie FRANCE
• IDL, automated testing, process, &tc. | Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
Résumé (CV) http://www.blf.utvinternet.ie | http://www.stopesso.com
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!