On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:10:50PM -0700, David Champion wrote: > * On 31 Aug 2016, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:42:34AM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:18:37PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > Your patch mixes tabulations and whitespaces. I believe mutt's policy is > > > whitespaces only, so it would be nice to use only whitespaces for all > > > new code. > > > > Just to note, this is not technically true. A very large chunk of Mutt > > code mixes tabs/whitespace. It's true that I have tabs turned off and > > so don't have them in my patches, but I don't believe we have a firm > > policy on this. > > Right. Mutt's style (to the extent that we've been picky about it) is > the emacs natural text mode of replacing each 8 spaces with a tab. As > much as it pains me, I've always tried to uphold that out of duty to the > code. Lately several people have been sliding toward pure spaces, and > I'm going toward that too in newer code. This here is very old code, > at least 8 years, and I'm not going to be start being picky about this > until we undertake to normalize the whole codebase. I know you (Damien) > have brought that up before, and I agree that we need it - which is one > reason I'm trying to flush these patches out now. If they start failing > to apply in any major way, it'll be another 8 years before I get them > out again.
Fair enough! There are some guidelines [1] but maybe they could be more detailed to have consistent style for new contributions. For instance, the expected output of `indent` is not obvious, and it seems to be missing some arguments to be closer to what the actual code base looks like (ex: most fuctions declarations have their types and names on the same line, so -npsl should be added as argument). [1] https://dev.mutt.org/trac/wiki/CodingStyle
