[cfe-commits] [PATCH] -rewrite-includes

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Wed Apr 4 05:00:40 PDT 2012

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak at suse.cz> wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 of April 2012, Matt Beaumont-Gay wrote:
> > Looking better.
> [list of improvements and "improvements" skipped]
>  You know what, I give up. This is ridiculous and I've had enough.
>  Although I have spent quite some time on the patch and really don't like
> the
> idea of not upstreaming it and keeping it only for me and whoever else
> would
> be interested, I like even less the idea of going through one more
> iteration
> of this. I don't think I've ever been treated even close to this when
> submitting a patch to any of the other projects I've sent a patch to. If
> you
> don't want the feature and a possible contributor, you could have just as
> well said it right at the beginning.

I'm sorry you feel this way, and got this impression.

We definitely do want the feature and more contributors. Providing detailed
code review of new features is actually a very time consuming activity. It
would be much faster to just reformat the patch ourselves and submit it,
but that doesn't build up new contributors or give them experience with the
coding conventions used within the Clang project. It also doesn't scale --
we can't afford to spend all of our time reformatting other people's
contributions. Instead, we're trying to teach you *how* to make a
contribution to the Clang codebase.

Now, if you're not interested in on-going contributions, that's fair. It is
absolutely a lot of work to learn and internalize the style and coding
conventions we use. I'm sorry if I misled you in encouraging you to dive in
and implement this, and learning the conventions and style used within
Clang isn't a useful investment of your time.

That said, be aware that *someone* is going to have to go through and fix
these issues before the patch is accepted. In its current form, it very
clearly is not ready for submission. Style, commenting, and even little
things like indentation are incredibly important for a project as large and
diverse as either Clang or LLVM. I'm sorry if we don't see eye-to-eye here
on the priority placed on consistency and formatting, but the existing
community has a reasonable amount of experience with it and have found in
practice that it really helps maintenance in the long run.

 If somebody with superpowers sufficient to get past this inquisition
> session
> would feel like taking over the patch, just go ahead. I don't think there's
> any technical problem with it and I've been using it extensively in the
> last
> few weeks (and I'd be willing to have a look at it if somebody finds an
> actual technical problem in it after all).

Again, we have a reasonable amount of experience that indicates coding
conventions, style, and other such factors are critically important to
long-term maintainability of a large codebase. We consequentially have very
high standards here.

To sum up: I think this functionality is good, and eventually someone will
hopefully have time to pick it up and make the necessary style
improvements. I can understand if you don't have the time to finish this,
but until someone can find the time and finish cleaning it up, the patch
isn't ready to be submitted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120404/8a2805ef/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list