Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread ng0
Christian Grothoff transcribed 3.0K bytes: > We should just deploy a Git hook to reject pushes if they contain tabs > in .c or .h files, that should work as a minimal fix, right? -C No leading tabs, No trailing whitespace, and no tabs at all? Or simply no tabs? I can arrange that either before or

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread Schanzenbach, Martin
Either that or have a lint job in the pipeline in the CI. > On 13. Mar 2019, at 22:11, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Signed PGP part > We should just deploy a Git hook to reject pushes if they contain tabs > in .c or .h files, that should work as a minimal fix, right? -C > > On 3/13/19 9:03

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread Christian Grothoff
We should just deploy a Git hook to reject pushes if they contain tabs in .c or .h files, that should work as a minimal fix, right? -C On 3/13/19 9:03 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > I don't like changing somebody else's lines just for intendation because it > messes with git blame. > So I

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread ng0
Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 5.2K bytes: > I don't like changing somebody else's lines just for intendation because it > messes with git blame. > So I think it is better to hold people to the coding style. Okay. Works for C, but not in intendation enforcing languages (Python), where I've

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread Schanzenbach, Martin
I don't like changing somebody else's lines just for intendation because it messes with git blame. So I think it is better to hold people to the coding style. BR > On 13. Mar 2019, at 20:01, n...@n0.is wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.9K bytes: >> In the end, please also check

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread ng0
Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.9K bytes: > In the end, please also check https://docs.gnunet.org/#Coding-style and > adjust your editor to it. > Currently, the file has mixed spaces and tabs which is quite unreadable (for > me). > Now, I know this is a problem in other files as well (looking

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread Schanzenbach, Martin
In the end, please also check https://docs.gnunet.org/#Coding-style and adjust your editor to it. Currently, the file has mixed spaces and tabs which is quite unreadable (for me). Now, I know this is a problem in other files as well (looking at you gnunet-ecc.c), but better not copy the bad

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread Schanzenbach, Martin
Hi! > On 13. Mar 2019, at 18:25, Hartmut Goebel > wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Am 03.03.19 um 11:33 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin: >> The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*. > I followed this advice, adding options --verbose, -s/--silent and > -d/--device. Here is the resulting

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

2019-03-13 Thread Hartmut Goebel
Hi Martin, Am 03.03.19 um 11:33 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin: > The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*. I followed this advice, adding options --verbose, -s/--silent and -d/--device. Here is the resulting help output, which look s good::  src/util/gnunet-qr --help gnunet-qr Scan a