Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Maintainer Entry Profile

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 07:17 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:

> Ok, good to confirm that we do not yet have an objective standard for
> coding style. This means it's not yet something process documentation
> can better standardize for contributors and will be subject to ongoing
> taste debates. Lets reclaim the time to talk about objective items
> that *can* clarified across maintainers.

No, let's not and just clarify whether or not whitespace
style patches are acceptable patch submissions.

Coding style fragmentation is not otherwise acceptable to me.

nvdimm mandating 2 tab indentation when nvdimm itself is not
at all consistent in that regard is also whitespace noise.

> As for libnvdimm at this point I'd rather start with objective
> checkpatch error cleanups and defer the personal taste items.

Fine by me.

I do want to avoid documenting per-subsystem coding styles.

How about adding something to MAINTAINERS like:

A:	Accepting patches by newbies or CodingStyle strict

and checkpatch could be changed turn off a bunch of
whitespace rules on a subsystem basis when run with
-f for files or without -f for a patch.

Most of this comes down to whitespace like

	a = b + c

where it hardly matters if the CodingStyle mandated
space around + is used or

	foo = bar(baz,
			qux)

where qux position is not really important.