+1 for automating this. I think the style is pretty good even if it doesn't exactly match. I think it will save a lot of time wrapping lines, etc.
What is the proposed approach to putting this into use? Will we just incrementally reformat things as they're touched with git-clang-format, or try to do a bulk reformat? Will this be our canonical style? I.e. if a patch author or reviewer doesn't like what clang-format does, do we just stick with the tool's output for consistency. My preference is that we just do it incrementally and that we do make it our canonical style. On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Alex Behm <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for abandoning some of our style idiosyncrasies in favor of > easy-to-maintain automation > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think this is great - really useful to have. There are some small > > deviations from our traditional style (see the review for a couple of > > them). They really don't bother me, and I think it's much better to have > > automated formatting than to hang on to the position of a : in a for() > > statement :) But I asked Jim if he'd start a thread here to check if > others > > agree. > > > > On 15 August 2016 at 15:18, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would like to have a clang-format config file in our directory to > help > > > new contributors understand how to format code and have a tool to do it > > for > > > them. Through the time I've been sending patches I've been > accumulating a > > > .clang-format file that seems to minimize the style comments I get. You > > can > > > see it here: > > > > > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/3886 > > > > > > And you can save it and upload it to play with here: > > > > > > http://zed0.co.uk/clang-format-configurator/ > > > > > > I would love to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Henry Robinson > > Software Engineer > > Cloudera > > 415-994-6679 > > >
