I can’t see how clang-format will make you jump through any sort of hoops. Creator already has a hook for doing it on file saving time afaik, git-clang-format will clean up your change from the command line.
Lars > On 20 Jun 2018, at 11:52, Tor Arne Vestbø <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:30:26AM +0000, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 18:19, Ville Voutilainen >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 19 June 2018 at 19:13, Philippe <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
