launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Benji York <benji.york@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Richard Harding
<rick.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> So - who would be happy (and who would not) with a LOC rule like the one above?
>>
>> -Rob
>
> So I'm officially in the "wait and see" boat on this. It strikes me that a
> lot of our overall goals of modularity, components, etc are very likely to
> increase LoC just because it's the nature of splitting things. I don't have
> any hard numbers though, so perhaps this is a logical fallacy I've got in
> my head and I'd be curious to see how it works out.

We could use cyclomatic complexity instead of LOC, but we would need
slightly more tooling to support that.

> I do think that just having this as a code review bullet point is good
> though. It's much easier to have the discussion during a code review with
> the current policy than it might have been a little bit ago.

If we adopt a policy like the one under discussion, it should certainly
go into the "things discussed during a review" bucket.  MPs can require
sloccount output just as they require lint details today.

-- 
Benji York