On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:49:46PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-01-23 14:43:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> The function name comments are similar, though less consistent so I'm
>> too lazy to write a script to find one that is actually wrong (with
>> which to trigger Andres's let's-delete-them-all response :-D).
I am not sure if anybody uses them for anything automatically, still I
find myself from time to time looking at them to remember on which
path the file is located when opened in emacs. So I still like having
those references, perhaps I am just a minority. Being in the minority
is usually a cool thing, still if you wish ripping all these out it's
not like I'll cry for that, so please feel free to do as you see fit.
> I wish function comment styles were more consistent, but there's *SO*
> many styles, that I think it's hard to nicely automate it. And it's much
> more likely to cause conflicts than removing IDENTIFICATION. So...
Yes, I am usually more annoyed by the inconsistency of the function
upper blocks than IDENTIFICATION... So I just try to stick with
keeping any new code consistent with the surroundings. Making
back-patching harder than it is now is not really appealing, so I'd be
-1 for doing any consistency work. Patching six branches for the same
patch is already a lot of work.
--
Michael
