[Mplayer-cvslog] CVS: main/libmpcodecs vd_xvid4.c,1.2,1.3

[gaddo]

Reimar Döffinger wrote:

>  
>
>>
>> Cosmetic only patches are easy to verify:
>>    cmp old.o new.o ;
>
>
> Please read again. "consists of hundreds of changed lines but most of 
> them are only cosmetics". How does comparing the object files help me? 
> And with pure cosmetics the log message _must_ indicate that anyway. 
> So your suggestion doesn't help anything.

Hi,

Well, i want to say that a patch that change _only_ estetic
can be verified easily; functional changes must be in
different patches.

> And as far as readability is concerned I have admit that some parts a 
> really bad but:
> 1) I'm not sure that e.g. changing only intendation would help that. 
> Adding comments in some places would help far more.

no, code well indented is _much_ easier to read than the mess
some file are. Coding well mean  that somebody  unfamiliar
to your source can understand what you want to do
with your data, not the history of the fixes applied to
the code.

> 2) When people reformat the code so that they can easily read it I 
> quite often find it just as unreadable as before.

This is a matter of Coding Style. Let's pick one good enough (gnu 
(ouch), kernel, whatever) and
stick to it for every new code that is added to mplayer and eventually 
convert the old
code to it. Look at mencoder.c and then to libavcodec/mpeg12.c ... what 
do you like most?
what you understand better?

> 3) Find some indent parameters that suit you should help in most 
> cases. Nobody forbids you to do cosmetics in your local tree...
>
Yes, i have my favourite editor and coding style. But this don't solve 
the problem of
everybody doing the same thing over and over, cvs up, and eventually 
contributing patches back to
the project.

> Greetings,
> Reimar Döffinger

ciao, marco.