From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <joe@perches.com>
Message-ID: <1473835402.32273.23.camel@perches.com>
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 23:43:22 -0700
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1609140830550.3395@hadrien>
References: <b72e9a2e-64d4-12af-1af3-adf963151466@de.ibm.com>
	<20160913194520.GA8071@cloud> <20160913140322.3ccad27c@lwn.net>
	<4691924.fimvUkKjuv@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160914020332.GA9558@cloud>
	<1473819862.32273.16.camel@perches.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1609140756320.3395@hadrien>
	<1473834432.32273.21.camel@perches.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1609140830550.3395@hadrien>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] checkpatch/Codingstyle and
 trivial patch spam
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 08:35 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 07:57 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > What types of changes are unacceptable?
> >
> > It's a mixed bag.
> >
> > Some maintainers reject all "style/whitespace changes".
> > Some maintainers reject global consistency patches like
> > int -> bool conversions.
> > Some maintainers reject literal -> #define changes like
> > 1 -> true and 0 -> false for booleans.
> >
> > Some of those maintainers are IMO misguided.
> Sorry, I just meant that you said that the section should list the kinds
> of changes that are acceptable.  But it seems more feasible to say what
> kinds of changes are not acceptable.  Then one would need a standardized
> language for describing what those unacceptable changes are.
> julia
> 

<shrug>

Is there really a difference in whatever grammar would be
necessary between what's acceptable and what's not acceptable?

It's still a classification problem.