gnunet-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] reindenting the tree, choosing a formater


From: N
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] reindenting the tree, choosing a formater
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 14:42:26 +0000

Christian Grothoff transcribed 5.1K bytes:
> There is already a minor mode for emacs to run uncrustify, you can find
> it in Taler's exchange.git/contrib/uncrustify*, so there shouldn't be a
> need to write a new extension for emacs.

This looks exactly like 1 of the 2 extensions I found and they
seem to not walk up, only look at ~/.uncrustify or similar, assuming
there's only one project ever etc.
 
> We should probably copy those files into the gnunet.git as well.
> 
> That said, we still do need the Git hook to prevent "bad" commits.
>
> On 9/8/19 1:49 PM, N wrote:
> > Okay, the obvious question now is documentation, even if short, at the
> > same time while I switch this over. I've spent the morning reading into
> > this and for emacs it almost seems like I have to continue working on an
> > extension for emacs. for vim there is formatprg (but can it walk a directory
> > structure upwards until it finds a named configuration file?).
> > 
> > I would remove the clang-format entry in .dir-locals.el. But other than
> > that, what's the most editor independent way to solve this? pre-commit
> > hook?
> > 
> > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 2.7K bytes:
> >> This is news to me, too. That being said, I would prefer if the commit 
> >> would simply be rejected if not
> >> conforming (i.e. if running the formatter results in a different output). 
> >> I would hate it if the commited
> >> code != my local copy after the push.
> >>
> >>> On 8. Sep 2019, at 12:25, N <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ok. I've never seen the email by florian which christian mentioned
> >>> to me. I'm okay with uncrustify.
> >>>
> >>> Should I wait for more of us to reply or get to it today?
> >>>
> >>> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 2.5K bytes:
> >>>> Fine with me. I just tried it. Works great in vim just like clang-format.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 8. Sep 2019, at 05:45, Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed PGP part
> >>>>> On 9/7/19 9:00 PM, N wrote:
> >>>>>>> Sure, assuming you're talking about using Florian's uncrustify style.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh? I thought we would be using clang-format.
> >>>>>> Do you know how much it differs in style? I've used
> >>>>>> clang-format in my hook. I can run uncrustify on the
> >>>>>> tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that uncrustify looks significantly better -- and also offers some
> >>>>> more flexibility (i.e. "leave as is") I think we should just go for
> >>>>> uncrustify _exclusively_.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> >>>> address@hidden
> >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 




> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]