This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Neels Hofmeyr nhofmeyr at sysmocom.deOn Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > Dear all, > > for egoistical reasons I'm in favor of a limit of 100 to 106 characters > only. Otherwise I can no longer fit three terminal windows next to each > other on a (these day standard minimum display width) of 1920, which > would be a major step back in terms of being able to look at multiple > source files simultaneously. Having the occasional bleed to a second line is not an option? I was hoping that all are fine with 120 to conclude this :) I've gotten used to a smaller font already and now have 119 chars of line estate in my two terminals alongside. If we go for ~106 I can go back to a larger font (where the i-dot is more than a single pixel) ... 106 is a kind of odd number to pick, but it's nearer to 120 than 100. Personally, I'm fine with odd numbers for good reasons. We could have 100 as the public "rule" to reduce the wtf-factor and use 106 as unwritten hard limit to reject patches on. So then, asking again: Would anyone veto/dislike an absolute max line width of 106 for all Osmocom projects? ~N -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20170405/e4a3292c/attachment.bin>