There is already a minor mode for emacs to run uncrustify, you can find it in Taler's exchange.git/contrib/uncrustify*, so there shouldn't be a need to write a new extension for emacs.
We should probably copy those files into the gnunet.git as well. That said, we still do need the Git hook to prevent "bad" commits. On 9/8/19 1:49 PM, N wrote: > Okay, the obvious question now is documentation, even if short, at the > same time while I switch this over. I've spent the morning reading into > this and for emacs it almost seems like I have to continue working on an > extension for emacs. for vim there is formatprg (but can it walk a directory > structure upwards until it finds a named configuration file?). > > I would remove the clang-format entry in .dir-locals.el. But other than > that, what's the most editor independent way to solve this? pre-commit > hook? > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 2.7K bytes: >> 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: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
