On Jul 20, 2007, at 5:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To simplify the other patches, I kept out all the whitespace and > comment changes that I wanted to make to code I wasn't modifying. > The changes here are pretty essential, they line up the code with > `Burgess-C-Style' as well as I understand it from reading > elseware. By essential, I mean that there were a few code problems > that resulted from misalignment, like having ProcessPendingPackages > happen inside the for loop, which wasn't apparently from the spacing.
There is quite a mixture of indentation for first-level-inside- function. I'd like to note that you submitted some patches where you moved variable definition from 0 to 3 spaces in, then in this patch you moved command code from 3 spaces to 0 indentation. I totally agree that we need to fix indentation, but 1. We should clarify indentation for first-level code inside a function. If the variables are 3 spaces, so should the code be, etc. 2. I'd really like to defer all indentation changes until *AFTER* we have the package code working well for everyone. It makes it really hard to evaluate patches or to diff against previous versions. Lets get it done, then do the indentation last - right before 2.3 ships. Obviously Mark gets to decide this one... -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 _______________________________________________ Bug-cfengine mailing list [email protected] https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cfengine
