Would it be a good idea to use the same clang-format version as in GDAL? I think one is 10 and the other 15.
Cheers On Tue, 24 Jan 2023, 12:07 Even Rouault, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah just to note that for now I've excluded the geodesic.h/c files and > associated tests imported from GeographicLib from the reformatting (as > well as a few third-party vendored C++ headers) > > Le 24/01/2023 à 12:05, Charles Karney a écrit : > > +1 > > > > On 1/23/23 22:55, Howard Butler wrote: > >> +1 > >> > >>> On Jan 23, 2023, at 4:01 PM, Alan Snow <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 3:34 PM Kurt Schwehr <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> +1 KurtS > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 1:30 PM Even Rouault > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I guess this deserves formal PSC approval: > >>> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/3590 > >>> > >>> Basically this generalizes the formatting rules that have been applied > >>> to the code added since PROJ >= 6 to the rest of the code base and adds > >>> automation through pre-commit to apply those formatting rules at git > >>> commit time. > >>> > >>> Starting with my +1 > >>> > >>> Even > >>> > >>> -- > >>> http://www.spatialys.com > >>> My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > > PROJ mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj > > -- > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > PROJ mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj >
_______________________________________________ PROJ mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
