On dim, mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:13 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > REFERENCES, BACKGROUND and FURTHER DISCUSSION > > > [1] Guillem persistently reintroducing errors, wholesale > > Here is an example of a big code change made by Guillem: > http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=4e5846ccd3dcc33504aba8ef35a8962bccfd562e > However this is wrong as I explained here: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2007/10/msg00200.html > > I also emailed Guillem privately in August 2007 to ask that he stop > this kind of thing. > > Guillem has persisted with exactly the same mistake. For example: > http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=02680ecbbbf6da2b023891a11b38ecce5346dbbd > > It is one thing to make a coding mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. > It is quite another to make a widespread change, without discussion, > and which is even if it is correct and worthwhile only at best > stylistically helpful. And then, after having been told that it was > wrong, to continue requires a dogmatic belief in one's own > correctness. AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're totally on crack. Under C, NULL is defined as (void *)0 (and *NOT* (char *)0 that is TOTALLY wrong for obvious reasons), and "someone" is not going to #define NULL 0. I fully support Guillem changes. C99 is almost 10 years old, we're coding dpkg for Debian, in a sane C99/POSIX/X-OPEN/whatever environment. Or are you also coding with 6-chars long variables names because pre-ansi C didn't required compilers to remember more than 6 chars to distinguish variable names ? If you're so afraid that one of the included headers defines NULL to '0', then just assert (__builtin_types_compatible(NULL, void *)) somewhere and be done with it. But please, (char *)0 is not only wrong, it's also tasteless and ugly to the eye. > [2] Reformatting changes > > Guillem has been engaging in a programme of reformatting and restyling > of dpkg's code. > > See for example #375711 where I submit a patch to correct what seemed > to me obviously a tab/space conversion error, but which turned out to > be deliberate. (I first asked about this on debian-dpkg the 26th of > June 2006 and there was no reply until over a month later on the 31st > of May, so that I was already committed to my triggers code being > based on the original, rather Guillem's, formatting.) See also the > examples above. > > Everyone who works on free software knows that reformatting it is a > no-no. You work with the coding style that's already there. Oo I definitely don't live in the same world than yours. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp5ffANY3w8h.pgp
Description: PGP signature