On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar < khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I have a different problem. clang is complaining on the 4.1 back port of a > patch which is merged in master before > clang-format is brought in. Is there a way I can get smoke +1 for 4.1 as > it won't be neat to have clang changes > in 4.1 and not in master for same patch. It might further affect the clean > back ports. > > This is a bug.. please file an 'project-infrastructure' bug to disable clang-format job in release branches (other than release-5 branch). -Amar > - Kotresh HR > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Ravishankar N <ravishan...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 09/18/2018 02:02 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote: >> >>> I see that the procedure mentioned in the coding standard document is >>> buggy. >>> >>> git show --pretty="format:" --name-only | grep -v "contrib/" | egrep >>> "*\.[ch]$" | xargs clang-format -i >>> >>> The above command edited the whole file. which is not supposed to happen. >>> >> It works fine on fedora 28 (clang version 6.0.1). I had the same problem >> you faced on fedora 26 though, presumably because of the older clang >> version. >> -Ravi >> >> >> >>> +1 for the readability of the code having been affected. >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM Amar Tumballi <atumb...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishan...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09/13/2018 03:34 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:25:22PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>>> What rules does clang impose on function/argument wrapping and >>>>>>> alignment? I >>>>>>> somehow found the new code wrapping to be random and highly >>>>>>> unreadable. An >>>>>>> example of 'before and after' the clang format patches went in: >>>>>>> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/dC~aRCzYgliqucGYIzxPrQ >>>>>>> Wondering if >>>>>>> this is just me or is it some problem of spurious clang fixes. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I agree that this example looks pretty ugly. Looking at random changes >>>>>> to the code where I am most active does not show this awkward >>>>>> formatting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So one of my recent patches is failing smoke and clang-format is >>>>> insisting [https://build.gluster.org/job/clang-format/22/console] on >>>>> wrapping function arguments in an unsightly manner. Should I resend my >>>>> patch with this new style of wrapping ? >>>>> >>>>> I would say yes! We will get better, by changing options of >>>> clang-format once we get better options there. But for now, just following >>>> the option suggested by clang-format job is good IMO. >>>> >>>> -Amar >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>>> Ravi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, I was expecting to see enforcing of the >>>>>> single-line-if-statements like this (and while/for/.. loops): >>>>>> >>>>>> if (need_to_do_it) { >>>>>> do_it(); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> instead of >>>>>> >>>>>> if (need_to_do_it) >>>>>> do_it(); >>>>>> >>>>>> At least the conversion did not take care of this. But, maybe I'm >>>>>> wrong >>>>>> as I can not find the discussion in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/15 >>>>>> 64149 >>>>>> about this. Does someone remember what was decided in the end? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Niels >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Amar Tumballi (amarts) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gluster-devel mailing list >>>> gluster-de...@gluster.org >>>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> gluster-de...@gluster.org >> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > Kotresh H R > -- Amar Tumballi (amarts)
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
