On 13 Sep 2023, at 16:25, Volker Hilsheimer via Development
wrote:
On 13 Sep 2023, at 13:23, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 13/9/23 11:06, Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
I would therefore propose to remove the file from qt5.git:
+1 from my side.
I believe I simply do not have the clang-format
On 13 Sep 2023, at 16:25, Volker Hilsheimer via Development
wrote:
I find the input from clang-format’s sometimes helpful, sometimes annoying. And
the source of the annoyance is not that clang-format points out things that I
could have formatted differently, but that our pre-commit hook
On 13 Sep 2023, at 13:23, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 13/9/23 11:06, Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
I would therefore propose to remove the file from qt5.git:
+1 from my side.
I believe I simply do not have the clang-format tool installed on my system,
because it usually breaks the formatting of
On 13/9/23 11:06, Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
I would therefore propose to remove the file from qt5.git:
+1 from my side.
I believe I simply do not have the clang-format tool installed on my system,
because it usually breaks the formatting of the patches, not improves them.
One way
On 13/9/23 09:13, Paul Wicking wrote:
On 12 Sep 2023, at 22:33, Ahmad Samir wrote:
_clang-format isn't picked up by clang-format by default, you'd have to rename
it to .clang-format.
clang-format reads either of them [0]. It's unnecessary to rename the
configuration file.
[0] -
2023 8:54 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: (re)move qt5.git/_clang-format
> There _is_ consensus. It's in the wiki. And in older modules not
> infected by the _clang-format file. Discussions arise because
> of .clang-format, not despite it. Afaict,
There _is_ consensus. It's in the wiki. And in older modules not
infected by the _clang-format file. Discussions arise because
of .clang-format, not despite it. Afaict, there never was a discussion
about how faithful the _clang-format represents the Qt style before it
was added. If there was
On 12 Sep 2023, at 22:33, Ahmad Samir wrote:
_clang-format isn't picked up by clang-format by default, you'd have to rename
it to .clang-format.
clang-format reads either of them [0]. It's unnecessary to rename the
configuration file.
[0] -
On 13/9/23 01:46, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
[I didn't get André's Email...]
On 12.09.23 23:40, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 13/9/23 00:11, apoenitz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:33:17PM +0300, Ahmad Samir wrote:
A config file that is 80-90% correct is better than nothing.
I disagree.
[I didn't get André's Email...]
On 12.09.23 23:40, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 13/9/23 00:11, apoenitz wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:33:17PM +0300, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>>> A config file that is 80-90% correct is better than nothing.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> The result of such a thing is that
On 13/9/23 00:11, apoenitz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:33:17PM +0300, Ahmad Samir wrote:
A config file that is 80-90% correct is better than nothing.
I disagree.
The result of such a thing is that people submit patches matching the config
100%, deviating from the wanted style by
On 12/9/23 20:29, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
Hi,
TL;DR:
- remove _clang-format in qt5.git
- add it instead to submodules which conform to it
The clang-format philosophy is that you pick a config and stick to it.
If your personal preferences are different, you use a different
Marc Mutz (12 September 2023 19:29) wrote:
> TL;DR:
> - remove _clang-format in qt5.git
> - add it instead to submodules which conform to it
[snip]
> WDYT?
Well - given that (after init-repository has set up the symlinks "for"
me), my first reaction to any message from clang-format is usually to
Hi,
TL;DR:
- remove _clang-format in qt5.git
- add it instead to submodules which conform to it
The clang-format philosophy is that you pick a config and stick to it.
If your personal preferences are different, you use a different
configuration locally and re-format on check-in and check-out.
14 matches
Mail list logo
