Re: [GNUnet-developers] reindenting the tree, choosing a formater

[Schanzenbach, Martin]

This is news to me, too. That being said, I would prefer if the commit would 
simply be rejected if not
conforming (i.e. if running the formatter results in a different output). I 
would hate it if the commited
code != my local copy after the push.

> On 8. Sep 2019, at 12:25, N <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> ok. I've never seen the email by florian which christian mentioned
> to me. I'm okay with uncrustify.
> 
> Should I wait for more of us to reply or get to it today?
> 
> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 2.5K bytes:
>> Fine with me. I just tried it. Works great in vim just like clang-format.
>> 
>>> On 8. Sep 2019, at 05:45, Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> On 9/7/19 9:00 PM, N wrote:
>>>>> Sure, assuming you're talking about using Florian's uncrustify style.
>>>> 
>>>> Oh? I thought we would be using clang-format.
>>>> Do you know how much it differs in style? I've used
>>>> clang-format in my hook. I can run uncrustify on the
>>>> tree.
>>> 
>>> Given that uncrustify looks significantly better -- and also offers some
>>> more flexibility (i.e. "leave as is") I think we should just go for
>>> uncrustify _exclusively_.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GNUnet-developers mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
>

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP