Hi Joe,
I didn't forget about this -- I was playing the other day with
`ColumnLimit: 0` and the new options up to LLVM 11 to see what we
could do... See below.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:26 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Hey again Miguel:
>
> A little script and some statistics:
>
> Today about 6% of
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 20:51 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:22 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 13:54 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > Why is 80 "still preferred" to begin with?
> >
> > That's neither my nor your issue to solve.
[]
> By the way, I noticed tha
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:22 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 13:54 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > Why is 80 "still preferred" to begin with?
>
> That's neither my nor your issue to solve.
? You (or Linus, I still don't know since the commit is on your name
but I can't find the ful
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 13:54 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > Exactly. So don't set a new hard limit of 100.
> >
> > This would _always_ wrap lines to 100 columns when
> > 80 columns is still preferred.
>
> Why is 80 "still preferred" to begin
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Exactly. So don't set a new hard limit of 100.
>
> This would _always_ wrap lines to 100 columns when
> 80 columns is still preferred.
Why is 80 "still preferred" to begin with? The patch you sent for
`coding-style.rst` was picked up by Lin
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 12:03 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:13 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > Ii think this is a not a good change.
> >
> > If you read the commit log you provided, it ways
> > "staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_"
>
> Yes, but
Hi Joe,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:13 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Ii think this is a not a good change.
>
> If you read the commit log you provided, it ways
> "staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_"
Yes, but the related email discussions were not about establishing a
new hard li
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:13:24AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 14:51 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > The provided clang-format file wraps at 80 chars. If noone minds I'd like
> > to adjust this limit to 100 similar to what checkpatch (cf. [1]) uses now.
> >
> > [1]: commi
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 14:51 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> The provided clang-format file wraps at 80 chars. If noone minds I'd like
> to adjust this limit to 100 similar to what checkpatch (cf. [1]) uses now.
>
> [1]: commit bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column
> warnin
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:58 PM Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 05:55:14PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:51 PM Christian Brauner
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The provided clang-format file wraps at 80 chars. If no one minds, I'd
> >
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 05:55:14PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:51 PM Christian Brauner
> wrote:
> >
> > The provided clang-format file wraps at 80 chars. If no one minds, I'd like
> > to adjust this limit to 100 similar to what checkpatch (cf. [1]) use
Hi Christian,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:51 PM Christian Brauner
wrote:
>
> The provided clang-format file wraps at 80 chars. If no one minds, I'd like
> to adjust this limit to 100 similar to what checkpatch (cf. [1]) uses now.
Thanks! Picking this up with a few changes to the commit message.
C
The provided clang-format file wraps at 80 chars. If noone minds I'd like
to adjust this limit to 100 similar to what checkpatch (cf. [1]) uses now.
[1]: commit bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column
warning")
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner
---
.clang-format | 2 +-
1 fil
13 matches
Mail list logo
