On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 14:09 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 09/12/16 12:17, Mark Weiman wrote: > > - > > - .mtree_open = _pkg_mtree_open, > > - .mtree_next = _pkg_mtree_next, > > - .mtree_close = _pkg_mtree_close, > > - > > - .force_load = _pkg_force_load, > > + .get_base = _pkg_get_base, > > + .get_desc = _pkg_get_desc, > > + .get_url = _pkg_get_url, > > + .get_builddate = _pkg_get_builddate, > > + .get_installdate = _pkg_get_installdate, > > + .get_packager = _pkg_get_packager, > > + .get_arch = _pkg_get_arch, > > + .get_isize = _pkg_get_isize, > > + .get_reason = _pkg_get_reason, > > + .get_validation = _pkg_get_validation, > > <snip> > > Is there any reason to keep this alignment given the churn whenever a > field requires it to change? I remember we go rid of this type of > style in repo-add. >
It doesn't matter to me, I just wasn't sure if you wanted to conserve the original formatting. If you would like me to change it, I can. > A Mark
