Stewart Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 06:29:08PM -0700, Monty Taylor wrote: >> A while back I worked up an uncrustify config for drizzle. It needs a >> little bit of tweaking, but once we've got it, we can hook it in to this >> pretty straight forward. >> >> One of the tough bits about this is that we'll need to run uncrustify on >> the source once and check that in, which will be an ugly merge for >> anyone with large stuff outstanding. Perhaps as soon as we merge >> new-cleanup, we can do an uncrustify merge, and then turn on the >> style-checker plugin (assuming we can make the style checker plugin work?) > > Note that this will effectively destroy the 'bzr blame' (err... > annotate) usefulness. So a big -- there from me.
Yeah - that would sort of blow. I wonder if we could write a little bzr hack to fix that... like, a magic revid passed to annotate that gets the next rev back for that line... > We should likely stick to: > - if small change, keep in style with code around it > - if large change, write in Drizzle style. > > Changes for style sake aren't hugely useful unless they make it slightly > easier to read incomprehensible code. The thing I like about zeroing out the style stuff and then having pre-commit style hooks, is that then we don't have any more style-related lines creeping in to patches, which makes it easier to see what the patch was actually doing - instead of now where there's the patch, and there's also the four lines that changed, but the only thing that really changed about them was a style cleanup - but it was a style cleanup that was right to do because it was directly adjacent to the code. I _would_ be annoyed by the borking of the blame track. Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
