On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 16:10:11 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 05:03:47PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 15:53:35 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 02:18:17PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:56 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
[...]
There's really not any significant real world pain from mixing the two styles. It is visually distasteful but doesn't cause any functional problems at runtime, nor complexity for maintainers. A large conversion over the whole codebase does cause very significant pain in conflicts for anyone cherry picking patches. That is just not a net win overall. I'll take visually mixed styles any day over creating patch conflicts in backports.
I don't see how. If the end-goal is to convert everything to the new form you will get into potential pain/conflicts sooner or later anyways.
If we incrementally convert methods, then when backporting a patch related to that method, we have good chance of being able to cherry-pick the small conversion patch. If we bulk convert entire file at a time, across the whole codebase, attempting to cherry-pick the conversion patches will have much higher conflict liklihood.
I doubt that there will be any motivation to start a incremental coversion. While when adding VIR_AUTOFREE and coverting to it there was a clear benefit of simplification in doing so, converting from VIR_AUTOFREE to g_autofree has exactly 0 benefit.
Or the other option is to leave it as a half-done lingering refactor and that doesn't help either.
It don't be in a half-done state forever. We can let things be converted incrementally over the next 3-6 months. At the end of say 6 months if anything is left we bulk convert it them. That gets the benefits opf incremental work without downside of stuff remaining unconverted forever.
How is this not a big-bang conversion?