I think some of the pain points raised here regarding massive churn on existing PRs & conflicts would be addressed by what Ralf said a few emails ago:
> A detailed proposal with an incremental formatter may have a chance here (xref `darker` and our `tools/linter.py`), a "let's just run black" one seems dead in the water given the people and opinions in the linked SciPy PR and issue from a few months ago. Why not focusing energies on this incremental approach? I think all folks want to (1) end discussions about code style, (2) avoid weird formatting on math expressions (that black doesn't seem to handle very well) and (3) avoid "breaking the world". Regardless of the specific formatter (black, blue, yapf w/ tweaks), doing it incrementally only on code touched by new PRs would at least provide a less scary way forward. Juan Luis On November 22, 2021, Roman Yurchak <rth.yurc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/11/2021 19:07, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > > if we do this, we should probably go through each of the 200+ open > PRs (or, at least, the non-conflicted ones), apply the formatter, and > then squash the PR into a single commit. We can do that by script. > > We had to deal with this issue in scikit-learn as well, and you might > find the guide on resolving such conflicts in > https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/20301 helpful. > > -- > Roman > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: hello@juanlu.space
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
