1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <cory@atlastechnologiesinc.com>) id 1Y0b5f-0007Xt-Gj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:13:55 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com ([209.85.218.47])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y0b5e-0007qT-99
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:13:55 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id v63so8525944oia.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=1WAp0j5SD6KSNke6LsYPKBOUSdWIW6Ga62S6EBbVw48=;
b=Pa744BMqIhZM5ymnt3JLwxR9AMQb7ZJXLotC+EpLmSrDpQldlYBG6Vis78MMxZD0DA
YsgFO0k5FDK8l6Xes6KscSx82W+C/kH6P3qlemzs1hMmcMlfQRan+F2unP5+4xkF47SO
5dAwrp2ZNOlGjBOuX6OUf1kRl8onwYj+U1CDY4QdZAqG4hJMmzcy5CacPMKObDrnrj+E
p/aVc9QJcA7q/1NjG4p7BRS99GR4q16ADlBA1188qdO0uGzH80t6HF65+rfZBizdf8i3
697yMrifNwhK/L6Ozltwuxq7XmvdXR1Zn2CrEle+pgiHhXeRTuG+b2lEeePoQSrvqstJ
8HsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHGb1pLb/1FXltGyiliXWhYbVFAcvo+0B7CcQzs2x8pqNI7Ng+hnz3FI2bVNqunA7psY3A
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.247.99 with SMTP id yd3mr5621547obc.24.1418668947089;
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.13.38 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:42:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OvDPazCQVonhokm0KopN-WYj0_PP_LO8gPewc1LG5Qow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141215124730.GA8321@savin.petertodd.org>
<CADJgMztRdNWyogPCjv64qpUHcvGDiOZDVAkv5Ra8hn25Z9xa8w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0OvDPazCQVonhokm0KopN-WYj0_PP_LO8gPewc1LG5Qow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:42:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAApLimi+Jskwn=70+cfqr8=d55CKJFpBDBmW48zJk24PSBZczg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1Y0b5e-0007qT-99
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:13:55 -0000
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We all want to see more modular code, but the first steps should just be
>> to relocate blocks of code so everything is more logically organised in
>> smaller files (especially for consensus critical code). Refactoring should
>> come in a second wave preferably after a stable release.
>
>
> This is my opinion as well. In the Linux kernel, we often were faced with a
> situation where you have a One Big File driver with > 1MB of source code.
> The first step was -always- raw code movement, a brain-dead breaking up of
> code into logical source code files.
>
> Refactoring of data structures comes after that.
>
> While not always money-critical, these drivers Had To Keep Working. We had
> several situations where we had active users, but zero hardware access for
> debugging, and zero access to the vendor knowledge (hardware documentation,
> engineers). Failure was not an option. ;p
>
> Performing the dumb Break Up Files step first means that future, more
> invasive data structures are easier to review, logically segregated, and not
> obscured by further code movement changes down the line. In code such as
> Bitcoin Core, it is important to think about the _patch stream_ and how to
> optimize for reviewer bandwidth.
>
> The current stream of refactoring is really a turn-off in terms of
> reviewing, sapping reviewer bandwidth by IMO being reviewer-unfriendly. It
> is a seemingly never-ending series of tiny
> refactor-and-then-stuff-in-a-class-and-make-it-pretty-and-do-all-the-work.
> Some change is in order, gentlemen.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
That's exactly what happened during the modularization process, with
the exception that the code movement and refactors happened in
parallel rather than in series. But they _were_ done in separate
logical chunks for the sake of easier review. The commit tag
"MOVEONLY" developed organically out of this process, and a grep of
the 0.10 branch for "MOVEONLY" is a testament to exactly how much code
moved 1:1 out of huge files and into logically separated places and/or
new files.
Perhaps it's worth making "MOVEONLY" (which as the name implies, means
that code has been copied 1:1 to a new location) use an official dev
guideline for use in future refactors.
Cory
|
