[SCM] libebml packaging branch, master, updated. debian/0.7.7-3.1-14-g552a014

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 14:11:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:36:44 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 08:28:05PM +0000, fabian-guest at users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>>>>The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>>>>commit 552a01450aa8c3492e3264eb8509254488b99d21
>>>>Author: Fabian Greffrath <fabian at debian-unofficial.org>
>>>>Date:   Mon Jun 7 21:56:08 2010 +0200
>>>>
>>>>    Add debian/gbp.conf.
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/debian/gbp.conf b/debian/gbp.conf
>>>>new file mode 100644
>>>>index 0000000..1615f89
>>>>--- /dev/null
>>>>+++ b/debian/gbp.conf
>>>>@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
>>>>+[DEFAULT]
>>>>+upstream-branch = upstream
>>>>+debian-branch = master
>>>>+upstream-tag = upstream/%(version)s
>>>>+debian-tag = debian/%(version)s
>>>>+pristine-tar = True
>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed above several times, and have a general comment:
>>>
>>> I suggest to only state unusual things, not defaults.
>>>
>>> Concretely I suggest to only state the following:
>>>
>>> [DEFAULT]
>>> pristine-tar = True
>>
>>What problem does this solve?
>>
>> Removing the lines forces maintainers to stick with the defaults of
>> the removed fields. Not that I would do that, and TBH, I don't have a
>> particularly strong opinion on this, I'm just wondering. But it seems
>> that you have an opinion on this because you mentioned it here. I'm
>> trying to understand it.
>
> It solves no "problem", but improves readability to not list unnecessary
> information.

So a 6 line long configuration file is made more readable by removing 4
lines that are unnecessary in most cases?

> It seems from above that you consider the information necessary.  Could
> you elaborate on that, as I fail to understand how that is.

I general I agree that readability and maintainability is of course
something that we should at least try to maintain. In this particular
case we are talking about a very clear and very simple configuration
file. Since the file itself is already dead simple, I don't think that
in this case readability and/or maintainability is improved by removing
the lines. Au contraire, leaving them in assures that the last person
working on it documents that he assumes these default setting to be in
place.

Heck, I'm writing way more lines to describe the situation than the file
in question is long. We are really overdoing it here..




-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4