Hi All, I believe I've only seen +>=0s so far so I intend to (in the following order): * wait for an ok from @Robert Newson and @Paul J. Davis * add `erlfmt-ignore`s if necessary to #3568 * add a check to CI (ideally via `make`) to ensure `erlfmt` is +1 on the PRs in #3568 * create a PR for 3.x analogous to #3568
Please let me know if I missed anything. Donat On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:27 AM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > > In general I am +0.5 on the entire thing, but would like to see Bob > Newson or Paul Davis speak up. In the past they've been the most vocal > about code formatting standards, and I'd at least like to see a +0 from > both of them. > > -Joan > > On 20/05/2021 11:53, Ilya Khlopotov wrote: > > Good idea Donat!!! > > > > Even though I disagree with some of the choices made by erlfmt I appreciate > > consistency it provides. > > The choices are logical. I really love that every decision is documented > > and properly discussed. I did read PR in its entirety and in fact was not > > even noticed the ugly `->` in the beginning of the line closer to the end > > of the review process. > > I do believe our wetware would adjust in no time to new formatting. Given > > how easy it is to reason about. I agree with Donat's observation that we > > are spending too much time and emphasis on formatting issues every time we > > review PRs. I do believe it is a machine job to provide consistent > > formatting. We humans are better at other things. All in all I vote for > > adopting `erlfmt` for both 3.x and main. > > > > Also thank you Donat for providing validation scripts to make sure the > > re-formatted code compiles to the same beam files. > > > > Best regards, > > iilyak > > > > > > On 2021/05/18 18:13:14, Bessenyei Balázs Donát <bes...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi dev@couchdb, > >> > >> To eliminate the need for formatting-related comments and thus > >> unnecessary cycles in PRs, I've invested a little time to see if we > >> could use a formatter on `main` [1]. > >> The PR reformats `.erl` files in `src` and the script [2] included > >> shows that the compiled binaries match "before" and "after". > >> The formatter used in the PR is `erlfmt` [3] which is an opinionated > >> [4] tool so it's more of a "take it or leave it" as-is. (We could try > >> using other formatters if we want in case people want formatting but > >> think the choices `erlfmt` makes are unacceptable.) > >> Some members of the CouchDB dev community already left some great > >> comments on the PR and I haven't seen any strong opposition so far, > >> but I wanted to make sure more people are aware of this. > >> If you have any questions, comments or concerns (or objections), > >> please let me know. > >> > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Donat > >> > >> > >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/3568 > >> [2]: > >> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/3568/files#diff-7adfbc2d8dba4d4ff49ff2b760b81c006097f20f412ea2007f899042fd0de98a > >> [3]: https://github.com/WhatsApp/erlfmt > >> [4]: > >> https://github.com/WhatsApp/erlfmt#comparison-with-other-erlang-formatters > >>
