On 02/15/2014 12:45 PM, Mark de Wever wrote:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 02:44:36PM -0600, JT Coding wrote:
3) Are the formatting rules going to remain a secret? Without
knowing what the rules are, it's almost assured clang-format will
end up cleaning up every commit. That can be disheartening and lead
to people not bothering with even basic formatting of new code.
What do you mean with secret, the configuration file I used has been
committed?
It has? Oh, I see it now (src/.clang-format). So I guess what I had
meant by "secret" was that after reading the initial proposal, I had no
idea that the rules were available in some form. Perhaps technically not
a secret, but effectively not much different.
Still, now that I know about the configuration file, I would have
substantially the same objection/question, just with different
justifications. First off, there is the lack of an announcement that the
file had been made available. Second, I only found the file because I
was able to look up the commit in question. (Not only are there
hundreds, maybe thousands, of files in the repository, but also the
filename starts with a period, which causes it to normally be hidden
under Linux.) A new developer would have a much harder time finding the
file, even after guessing that the file might exist. Third, it is a
configuration file, not something meant to be read by a human. (Am I
supposed to understand what "AccessModifierOffset: -4" means?)
So the core of what I had meant was that there is no readily-findable,
human-readable description of the rules. Without that, few people will
know what the rules are, with the result (if the proposal was still on
the table) that clang-format would almost assuredly end up cleaning up
every commit. (etc.)
Still, I retract the "secret" label. :P
JaMiT
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
