Refactoring patches

[Pavel Sanda]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 03:43:40PM +0300, Yuriy Skalko wrote:
> > Are we trying to make it
> > 
> > - "semantically correct", by which I mean removing includes unrelated to
> >    the content of the processed file (i.e. forgotten header which is no
> >    more used becase the code using it is gone). 
> >    Having "unnecessary" include whose content is used (but already included
> >    recursively via another include) is actually proper.
> > 
> > - just trying to speedup things, so any possible include gone is good.
> 
> 
> > I don't have strong opinions about the direction, but I think we should first 
> > agree
> > what we are trying to achieve here.
> > 
> > Pavel
> 
> My main point for preparing the patch was achieving the first goal --
> semantic correctness.

That's fine with me.

> Every source file should include only headers with declarations it is
> using.

Agreed. Unfortunately I suspect that we can achive this only by manually
going through the suspects proposed by some tools instead of just
taking their results.

> And not to depend on transitive (or recursive as you called)
> includes since they are fragile and not reliable.

I do not think this is good idea, our include section would explode
if we really tried to fix all these

Pavel