On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 13:48 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:39:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:24:12 -0700 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > If your biggest hangup as a maintainer is that people send you patches
> > > that don't have variables sorted in some particular order, perhaps you
> > > should get out of kernel development and get into bike shed colorimetry
> > > consulting.  We have enough problems getting quality patches by the
> > > metrics that *actually* correlate to quality.  And as others have
> > > pointed out in this thread, many people produce patches across numerous
> > > subsystems.
> > 
> > I personally don't have any issue with my own idiosyncrasies not being
> > met. They are usually minor, and I'll fix up the patch (and document it
> > in the change log). These minor idiosyncrasies make maintaining code
> > easier.
> 
> That's perfectly reasonable.  If you want to take the time making the
> code in your area conform to additional requirements above and beyond
> those of the kernel as a whole, go for it.  I appreciate that you don't
> ask others to do it for you.

I tend to do the same. I'll fairly consistently fix up (C) to ©, u to
µ, and found myself bitching at David Howells for using 'sec' instead
of § the other day. This far into the 21st century, there really isn't
any excuse for people not doing that, but I don't reject patches
because of it.

I do *sometimes* make people fix things to say 'KiB', 'MiB' etc. for
themselves if they've sent me something that is plain wrong and using
the powers-of-ten versions inappropriately. But often I just fix that
up for myself too.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation