This is news to me, too. That being said, I would prefer if the commit would simply be rejected if not conforming (i.e. if running the formatter results in a different output). I would hate it if the commited code != my local copy after the push.
> On 8. Sep 2019, at 12:25, N <[email protected]> wrote: > > ok. I've never seen the email by florian which christian mentioned > to me. I'm okay with uncrustify. > > Should I wait for more of us to reply or get to it today? > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 2.5K bytes: >> Fine with me. I just tried it. Works great in vim just like clang-format. >> >>> On 8. Sep 2019, at 05:45, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Signed PGP part >>> On 9/7/19 9:00 PM, N wrote: >>>>> Sure, assuming you're talking about using Florian's uncrustify style. >>>> >>>> Oh? I thought we would be using clang-format. >>>> Do you know how much it differs in style? I've used >>>> clang-format in my hook. I can run uncrustify on the >>>> tree. >>> >>> Given that uncrustify looks significantly better -- and also offers some >>> more flexibility (i.e. "leave as is") I think we should just go for >>> uncrustify _exclusively_. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> GNUnet-developers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
