Re: more config(8) patches (was Re: patch to fix breakage caused by earlier config(8) patch)

[Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:07:22 +0100
ibotty <me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >     Don't go overboard!  But it's still a nice cleanup.
> 
> why not? i understand, that when many are working on a single point of
> code, these cleanups can be disturbing, but with chris being the only
> person to work on config(8), i doubt it would harm many people.
> 
> on the pro side, you have readable, good-structured code.

. ..that might disappear completely in the next nine months, if there's
sufficient interest in refactoring the kernel-building procedure into
some sort of "configNG" (did I just type that???)

But it's nice to have clean code in the meantime anyway, it makes it
easier to decipher exactly what config(8) is doing, which will be
valuable if it's going to be replaced.  Just the act of cleaning it up
helped me understand it better, in fact.

> one of dragonfly's best choices (for me) so far, has been a tolerant
> viewpoint about cosmetic changes (be it ansi, comments, other
> cleanup).
> 
> ~ibotty

I agree... and not only because that's the sort of low-hanging fruit I
can handle :)

Seriously, open-source software should be accessible, and these might be
small efforts, but they do make it more accessible, I think.

-Chris