Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:28:55PM +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> >> On 11/3/11 10:50 AM, "Adam Spiers" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >and given my strong aversion to (a) a mix of indentation styles within >> >a single file, and (b) commits which mix whitespace changes with real >> >coding changes, I thought this was the best way to proceed. But I >> >agree the sensible thing would be to fix all .scm files in one go. >> >> There were actually some comments from senior developers opposing this >> plan, which was part of the reason it's never been finished. > > My understanding is that Jan insisted on the script matching > emacs' formatting, but as long as that's done he won't object. > (come to think of it, that may have been private email after the > main discussion died down) > > It's a shame that emacs doesn't support the "official extension > language of GNU", otherwise we could just use their .elisp > indentation directly. :(
Hm? Emacs uses scheme-mode for .scm files. Where is the problem with that? >> Rietveld doesn't prevent multiple patches per issue. Our policy of >> testing each commit to ensure that it doesn't break build prevents >> multiple patches per issue. > > I thought that rietveld automatically squashed all patches into a > single large diff -- which I agree isn't precisely the same as > "preventing" multiple patches, but it doesn't precisely "support" > them either. :) You can just upload them as a sequence. But that's really not the same as different revisions. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
