Attention is currently required from: Martin Roth, Julius Werner, HAOUAS Elyes.
1 comment:
Patchset:
As commented elsewhere, manual alphabetical ordering creates a […]
Sorry, just read a comment on CB:50247 that I missed earlier.
So, what I understand so far is that it would make it easier
to manually search for an existing include (and would avoid
duplicates, I imply).
IMHO, that's not enough to justify to encourage alphabetical
order. As there are no guarantees that it really is ordered
even if it looks like, one should just let their text editor
search for it. In my experience that's even faster.
I can't provide any reasonable statistics, but in my own per-
ception it seems that over the years the use of alphabetical
order has increased which brought a huge amount of noise
around it (comments to introduce / keep alphabetical order,
fixups to re-introduce it, duplicate entries because alphabe-
tical order was assumed but actually not the case).
I guess there are only two ways to fix it: Introduce tooling
that checks the alphabetical order or discourage it. Any
written statement that encourages it without any enforce-
ment just makes the situation worse.
To view, visit change 51553. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.