On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:14:33PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:30 -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Hey Chandra,
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:25:08PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > > In preparation for combined pquota/gquota support, do some
> > > whitespace cleanups.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Wow. Putting this in a patch by itself really puts it into stark
> > relief.
> > If we pull this in we're representing that some tabs and the alignment
> > of the fields is more valuable than the comments? I'm fairly certain I
> If you put it that way, it does sound not correct, and I would agree
> with you too :).
> But, IMO, it has to be more subjective than that. The comments removed,
> IMO, add no additional value (the field name conveys the same
> information). You can see that I left alone the comments that provide
> some value.
I did notice that you kept some of the comments. However, I am finding some of
the removed ones to be useful too. I think if you try to look at this
structure with the eyes of a newbie the comments do help you. e.g.
di_btimelimit doesn't carry much meaning for me out of context, and the comment
is helping me, at least. Not everyone is quite so moronic as me, though. ;)
> > don't agree that's the case...
> > I'm sorry for your trouble, but I think I should pass on this one. Do
> > you agree?
> In effect, the code does look better (than I found it :) at the cost of
> removal of redundant comments.
> If you still don't want to include, I would accept your decision.
Thanks. I really would prefer to keep them. FWIW, the rest of your patch set
doesn't appear to be adversely affected by doing so.