On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 15:53 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> I see your point about backports being more painful when you have
> a bunch of unrelated changes mixed in, but I would still prefer if
> we converted everything at once and at the same time introduced a
> suitable syntax-check rule preventing more instances of whatever
> function we just removed all callers of from creeping back in, or
> actually just dropping the function altogether.
>
> Doing the conversion incrementally will IMHO result in dragging it
> for much longer, causing more pain in the long run than ripping the
> bandaid would.
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.
If we allow both at the same time, then we'll keep using both going
forward because there's no incentive *not* to mix the two styles;
one of the stated advantages of adopting GLib, making the libvirt
code base more approachable to people familiar with QEMU and other
GLib-using projects, will then not be realized.
Both the conversion from one style to the other and, consequently,
addressing any conflict resulting from it, can be tackled in a
purely mechanical fashion: a bit annoying, sure, but hardly worth
keeping the conversion ongoing forever for in my opinion.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization