On onsdag 20. juni 2018 13.01.10 CEST Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > On 20 Jun 2018, at 12:13, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Good point, I was imagining it used only to verify style, not to > auto-format. Still, starting out with a few non-controversial rules would > be a good thing.
For now we're trying to get the format definition file into qt5 at all. Once we have a file we agree on (and I'd be happy to see it evolve, it's in git, so please just contribute everyone), we can decide how to use it. I see several things that would make sense. 1) Make it easy to use locally. That is mostly the case, just run: $ git clang-format And the lines you changed will be reformatted. 2) It's relatively easy to have a commit hook that complains or runs clang- format for you. 3) Make it part of the sanity bot with a nice message explaining that it's possible to use clang-format and ask contributors to use it (with neutral or -1 effect). Cheers, Frederik > Tor Arne > > > > > > > Lars > > > > > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 11:52, Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.ves...@qt.io> 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 <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 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development