On Monday 22 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > yea, truthfully - compliance with this is all over the map... it does
> > vary quite a bit.
>
> Yup, but these patches will bring almost all operator whitespace issues
> into compliance; only a handful of operators will remain to fix later.
And there
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 21:24 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> Zach Welch wrote:
> > There have been no objections to these series of patches, so I intend to
> > regenerate and apply them soon.
> >
> There is one thing I do not like - not exactly what you are talking
> about here.. I'd rather my voice
Zach Welch wrote:
> There have been no objections to these series of patches, so I intend to
> regenerate and apply them soon.
>
There is one thing I do not like - not exactly what you are talking
about here.. I'd rather my voice be heard...
In general, I think a general "white space cleanup"
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:52 -0700, Zach Welch wrote:
> The following chain of patch series performs tree-wide whitespace
> clean-up, using systematic search and replacement (i.e. sed).
> It must be applied on top of the last series that changes the types.
>
> The patches in these series have been
The following chain of patch series performs tree-wide whitespace
clean-up, using systematic search and replacement (i.e. sed).
It must be applied on top of the last series that changes the types.
The patches in these series have been reviewed to ensure there are no
adverse affects. Some operator
