This seems acceptable IMO. The general working conventions already are to separate whitespace and/or tab changes from a commit containing actual content. If you ./validate cleanly, but the server rejects the push for whitespace, adding an extra commit on top to clean up the affected files seems very sensible (it's simple to 'untabify' and eliminate trailing white space in most editors these days, so I imagine this isn't really going to cost you a lot of time.) I also add bonus points for the fact the server will reject it unless you clean up *all* affected files you touched, so things can't slip by. This is how the tab check works now, and it does deal with a 'range' of commits where later commits eliminate tabs introduced in earlier ones.
We'd also have to introduce the concept of git into ./validate for this to work (and add the ability to specify a commit range for stuff like this,) but a basic implementation may not be difficult, looking at the pre-receive script. Alternatively, these could be pre-commit hooks in the developer repository, but I believe you have to opt into that. Maybe worth putting on the wiki, though. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/08/13 12:21, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: > >> Would be nice to have. How about a third hook that disallows commits >> that include whitespace-only changes unless *all* changes are >> whitespace-only? ;) >> > > The problem with these kind of commit-time checks is that you only find > out the problem *after* you've validated your nicely polished commits. If > we're going to add more checks on commits they should be done by validate > (yes I know that's not at all trivial, but it's not impossible either). > > Cheers, > Simon > > > > > Geoff >> >> On 08/20/2013 10:59 AM, Jan Stolarek wrote: >> >>> Right now we have a git hook that prevents pushing a file containing >>> tabs, unless that file had them already (in other words: no new files with >>> tabs in our repos). I propose to add similar hook for trailing whitespaces. >>> Herbert says he can implement that. What do others think? Would you find >>> that useful or problematic? >>> >>> Janek >>> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs> >> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs> > -- Regards, Austin - PGP: 4096R/0x91384671
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
