On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:41 PM James Peach <jamespe...@me.com> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:24 PM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I’ve updated the tar-ball with the clang-format tools: > >>> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~zwoop/clang-format-03312015.tar.bz2 > >>> > >>> > >>> The MD5 of the tar-ball is > >>> > >>> minotaur (18:28) 266/0 $ md5 clang-format-03312015.tar.bz2 > >>> MD5 (clang-format-03312015.tar.bz2) = > >> 6b3e7933f3e93b52361c88970bc0d8fe > >>> > >>> > >>> Please use this exact version of clang format. Currently, it has a > >> static binary for Linux, which I hope should work on most platforms > (let me > >> know if it doesn’t). In addition, it also has a binary for OS X > (Yosemite, > >> I have not tested on Maverick). It’s important we all use the same > version, > >> so going forward, I’m versioning the packages as well, with the date. If > >> you are developing on a platform other then Linux and OS X, let me know > and > >> I’ll try to make a version for that as well. > >>> > >>> Question: Should we consider incorporating these binaries and scripts > >> into our source tree? > >> > >> Yes, definitely! > >> > > > > I am -1 on binaries in the repo, but if we wanted to put the code and > build > > it, I'd be ok with that. I assume the license is compatible? > > Maybe a submodule? or a script that downloads and stashes the right > binaries in the right place? > > I don't have strong feelings on either of those. Basically anything that doesn't involve polluting the repo with binaries is ok by me. > J
