hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================ Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:395-408 +Commits with No Functional Change +--------------------------------- + +It may be permissible to commit changes without prior review when the changes +have no semantic impact on the code if the changes being made are obvious and +not invasive. For instance, removing trailing whitespace from a line, fixing a +line ending to be consistent with the rest of the file, fixing a typo, code ---------------- hfinkel wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > chandlerc wrote: > > > I think this is a much broader statement than is warranted to address the > > > specific problem. And I'm not completely comfortable with it. > > > > > > I don't think guidance around "no functional change" is the right way to > > > give guidance about what is or isn't "obvious" and fine to commit with > > > post-commit review personally. > > > > > > I'd really suggest just being direct about *formatting* and whitespace > > > changes, and specifically suggest that they not be made unless the file > > > or code region in question is an area that the author is planning > > > subsequent changes to. > > We talk about formatting and whitespace in the CodingStandards document, > > but we talk about obviousness and post-commit review in DeveloperPolicy. > > Where would you like these new words to live? To me, they're more about the > > policy and less about the coding standard -- the coding standard says what > > the code should look like and the policy says what you should and should > > not do procedurally, but then I feel the need to tie it back to > > "obviousness". How about this in the developer policy: > > ``` > > The Obviousness of Formatting Changes > > ------------------------------------- > > > > While formatting and whitespace changes may be "obvious", they can also > > create > > needless churn that causes difficulties for out-of-tree users carrying local > > patches. Do not commit formatting or whitespace changes unless they are > > related > > to a file or code region that you intend to make subsequent changes to. The > > formatting and whitespace changes should be highly localized, committed > > before > > you begin functionality-changing work on the code region, and the commit > > message > > should clearly state that the commit is not intended to change > > functionality, > > usually by stating it is :ref:`NFC <nfc>`. > > > > > > If you wish to make a change to formatting or whitespace that touches an > > entire > > library or code base, please seek pre-commit approval first. > > ``` > I agree with @chandlerc about the current proposed text, and I think that > this is better. I wonder if we want to insist on separating the commits, of > if, combined localized commits are okay? > It depends on how much noise there is when combining the commits; and when evaluating for that, we have to remember that people use different diff tools. https://reviews.llvm.org/D50055 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits