Re: [openssl-dev] Revert commit 10621ef white space nightmare

2017-01-09 Thread Leonard den Ottolander
Hello Matt, On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 18:06 +, Matt Caswell wrote: > That particular commit was the result of a lot work and discussion on > this list and in other places. This is the code reformat commit and > changes the format of the source to be consistent with the OpenSSL > coding style: >

Re: [openssl-dev] Revert commit 10621ef white space nightmare

2017-01-09 Thread John Denker
On 01/09/2017 10:46 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > I don't remember ever seeing directives being indented by adding > white space between the hash sign and the directive. In my world, that is quite common. > If one wants to indent directives space is normally inserted before > the hash

Re: [openssl-dev] Revert commit 10621ef white space nightmare

2017-01-09 Thread Claus Assmann
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > If one wants to indent directives space is normally inserted before the > hash sign. I don't remember ever seeing directives being indented by > adding white space between the hash sign and the directive. Then you didn't look at source code

Re: [openssl-dev] Revert commit 10621ef white space nightmare

2017-01-09 Thread Matt Caswell
On 09/01/17 17:46, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hello, > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/10621efd3296a92f489f6ab26a88e88d9790930e#diff-4b59eddb1c722b1dc3d17b5f64149e12 > > is a white space nightmare. The replacement of "#define"s by "# define"s > etc. is just silly and makes it

Re: [openssl-dev] Revert commit 10621ef white space nightmare

2017-01-09 Thread Salz, Rich
Sorry you feel this way, but the patch is not being reverted. First of all, 1.0.1 is now end of life and gets no updates :) As for the specific pre-processor, there are systems out there that only recognized the poundsign if it was in the first column (silly but true). Also, we prefer the