<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:18 PM Chris Johns <<a href="mailto:chrisj@rtems.org">chrisj@rtems.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 24/1/20 9:57 pm, Jose Valdez wrote:<br>
> In fact these tools target the pre-qualified project.<br>
<br>
Do you see this as different to the RTEMS project?<br>
<br>
> Since it was Sebastian who suggested to create this set of python tools,<br>
<br>
I think Sebastian is wanting a smooth path for these tools into the project.<br>
<br>
> I think the idea was to standardize the use of python not only for this project, but also for other python written code in RTEMS community. This has the advantages that every written python code is standard, but has the drawbacks:<br>
> <br>
> -> old written code would need to be adapted to the standards. <br>
<br>
How different to the proposed coding standard is the existing code? Why not base<br>
the coding standard on what exists in the code base?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a very important question.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Have you evaluated the size of the task to update the existing code? How would<br>
get such changes for the rtems-tools and the RSB be tested and integrated back<br>
into the project? This apporach seems like a huge review task for me.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It could be or it may turn out that there isn't much changed. Without someone running</div><div>the reformatter and reporting, we won't know.</div><div><br></div><div>I tend to think it is worth knowing if this is a monster or a mouse before making</div><div>a decision. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Another option could be leave it as it is and only do this for new written code.<br>
<br>
It would be confusing to any new user to the code to have code written to a<br>
standard and code that is not? If you edit the old code is it to the new<br>
standard? If you edit an old file do you need to update the whole file?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If we accept a standard, then it is all or nothing. I'm going to sound like a </div><div>cranky old man but we have said things like this before and regretted it </div><div>every time. Consistency is critical.</div><div><br></div><div>Quick run of sloccount for a baseline</div><div><br></div><div>+ rtems-tools - <br></div><div>Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):<br>ansic: 47237 (49.86%)<br>cpp: 25837 (27.27%)<br>python: 21227 (22.40%)<br>sh: 442 (0.47%)<br></div><div><br></div><div>+ rtems-source-builder/source-builder - <br></div><div>SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted)<br>14314 sb python=14169,sh=145<br>65 top_dir sh=65<br>0 config (none)<br>0 patches (none)<br></div><div><br></div><div>So we have about 35K SLOC or Python by that.</div><div><br></div><div>No idea how the new standard versus the old looks. I thought Python had a consistent</div><div>style but I could be very wrong. :(</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> -> at some point some tools need to be upgraded (ex: python 3.7 will become unusable in 2030 Operating systems).<br>
<br>
I am not sure how this relates. Yes it will need to update however we need to<br>
support python2 for user facing tools for a while yet. A lot of what we do and<br>
how we work is historically driven.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>CentOS 8 was just released in October. None of the big organization users I</div><div>see are using it yet. </div><div><br></div><div>We need to make a LTS release with 5 on Python 2 as a minimum. I feel strongly</div><div>about that.</div><div><br></div><div>As long as the tools are written in a python agnostic manner, the version won't matter.</div><div><br></div><div>We need some test cases for the tools to verify them</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> I hope soon to formalize our suggestion to you and then you may review it (and propose changes if you find appropriate).<br>
<br>
I suggest working in the open and with us will be more beneficial in the long term.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 I can't agree strongly enough. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Note, I am assuming the remainder of the email was Christian's. The quoting from<br>
your email client made it difficult to tell.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@rtems.org" target="_blank">devel@rtems.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>