How about we also start with only one or two obvious rules that everyone agrees on? I don’t want Qt development to turn into Python PEP8 type rigid rules that makes you jump through a million hoops. If the latter is the goal here then I’m against enforcing clang-format, and it should be implemented as a bot that just warns, similar to the current style bot.
- Tor Arne > On 20 Jun 2018, at 11:21, André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:30:26AM +0000, Lars Knoll wrote: >> >> >>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 18:19, Ville Voutilainen >>> <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 19 June 2018 at 19:13, Philippe <philw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> For the above reasons I'd lean towards not running it globally and >>>>> just using it on new changes. >>>> >>>> +1, based on my clang-format experience on a big application. >>>> >>>> BTW, keep in mind that you can disable clang-format on code >>>> sections with: >>>> >>>> // clang-format off // clang-format on >>> >>> When I last experienced a large-scale clang-format reformat, it >>> really hurt development during the churn. We should somehow manage >>> to do it during a time when there aren't many pending patches in the >>> pipeline. I'm not concerned about git-blame; that has never been a >>> problem after reformats. However, I do not care about indentation >>> nor do I want to spend time on it either way, it has no actual >>> effect on readability and maintainability of code, and consistency >>> outside the file you're in has never mattered to me one bit. >>> >>> IOW, I'm not opposed to reformats and auto-checking of clang-format >>> (or even hooking it), but I do not see it as a thing with all that >>> great return-of-investment. >> >> It helps in that you do not need to point those things out in code >> reviews, and that I (and others) won’t even create changes with wrong >> formatting that I’ll need to fix up later on. It’s part of a larger >> story, where I would like to get as much automatic checking of changes >> done before humans start reviewing. > > It's also a cultural thing. > > Quite a few people seem to take less offense from a "Your formatting is > bad" when the comment comes from a bot than when it comes from a human. > >> One idea could be to introduce this incrementally. Let’s first start >> off with enforcing it for new changes. Then we run it globally over >> the code base shortly before Qt 6.0 is being released. At that time >> merges shouldn’t be as much of a problem (as we’ll probably >> cherry-pick into Qt 5.15) and by then all new changes in Gerrit will >> be properly formatted (due to the earlier hook). > > Incrementally sounds good to me. > > Still I am a bit of a fence here. So far I've seen a couple of auto- > formatting attempts biting back, so I thinl it would help to convince me > to see the kind of changes that would happen first before deciding > on the global change. > > Andre' > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development