patch review proceedings (was: Re: [MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] make cache2.c readable)

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:26:18PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 13:11 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:39:04PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 10:43 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > The patch we started out debating in this thread is a good example.  It
> > > > mixes whitespace changes with non-whitespace changes.  You say it's
> > > > cosmetic, Rich says it is not.  There is obviously room for debate here,
> > > > something I have no interest in getting into.  However, had the patch
> > > 
> > > Rich says some compilers might generate different code, but it would
> > > still be functionally equivalent. In principle compilers are free to
> > > generate different code because of whitespace changes too...
> > 
> > I'm sure that in principle they are free to generate different code
> > depending on the moon phase as well...
> 
> The point being that there is no debate about whether it would cause
> functionality changes: it wouldn't.

If it can cause a different binary to be generated then it DOES NOT
BELONG IN A WHITESPACE ONLY PATCH!

Even if it can't, changes which are not whitespace STILL DO NOT BELONG
IN PATCHES THAT CLAIM TO BE WHITESPACE CHANGES ONLY!!!

Stop this stupidity. Rejecting the patch was correct.

Rich