From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id OMhWA2kty19+YAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 06:49:13 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id GGCxOmgty19xQgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 06:49:12 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 534409405D4 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 06:49:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55782 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klRNW-0002Hk-4T for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 01:49:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43048) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klRNK-0002Hc-Ia for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 01:48:58 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:35648) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klRNH-0006XT-6D for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 01:48:58 -0500 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1klRN4-0005KF-23; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 01:48:42 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: Raghav Gururajan , Ryan Prior , Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 01:47:51 -0500 Message-ID: <87im9g4ukt.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.29 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 534409405D4 X-Spam-Score: -2.29 X-Migadu-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu X-TUID: 1G0hdYJGDK7A Hi Raghav, "Raghav Gururajan" writes: > Yeah, my brain laterally connects fields of different package > definitions. Like a spread-sheet, where each columns are different > package definitions and each row is a fields of a package's > definition. > > For example, if column 1 is glib and column 2 is gtk+, my brain spots > pattern or errors when [arguments] field of both the packages are in > the same row. Let's say [arguments] field of glib pack-def (column) is > in 4th place (row); and; if the 4th place (row) of gtk+ pack-def > (column) is [propagated-inputs]; my brain goes haywire. So I first do > the cosmetic change of rearranging the fields of gtk+ pack-def to > match with pack-def of gtk+. This is just one example. If your goal is to make the ordering of package fields more consistent across Guix -- which is something that I could support -- I can report that your commits are making that problem worse, not better. One of the common features of your "cosmetic changes" commits is that they all move the 'home-page' field from its conventional place above the 'synopsis' to below the 'description', if it wasn't there already. I just hacked up a little script to determine which ordering is more common. For simplicity, it only considers top-level declarations of the form (define-public (package ...)). Out of 11446 packages of that form in gnu/packages/*.scm, 88% of them (10078) have the 'home-page' field above the 'description' field. So, if consistency of ordering is your goal, you're going in the wrong direction. * * * Meanwhile, you've only provided a rationale for 1 out of 3 of the kinds of changes made in these commits. Do you have an explanation for why you are removing comments in your "cosmetic changes" commits? For example, the following two commits remove comments that explain why 'propagated-inputs' are needed: https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=c3264f9e100ad6aefe5216002b68f3bfdcf6be95 https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=416b1b9f56b514677660b56992cea1c78e00f519 What's your rationale for doing this? Am I the only one here who finds this practice objectionable? It's not even mentioned in the commit logs. Mark