The policy that exists for new files is a mere recommendation to use 4
space indentation, and no one is enforcing it, nor really paying much
attention to it.
On 01/03/22 19:00, Roland Knall wrote:
Policy always was and has been, that we try to achieve consistent guidelines
for new files and in general the guidelines for each file should be reflecting
that files style.
Although I do appreciate applying consistent styles, I acknowledge the fact
that we have a really old code base in some places and we shouldn’t force a
change everywhere because of it.
Can also see, that that would be neat with some opposition. So in general,
although I appreciate having new files apply to style guides, I would keep the
existing ones as is
Cheers,
Roland
Am 01.03.2022 um 19:23 schrieb João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt>:
On 01/03/22 17:45, David Perry wrote:
Hi all,
Bottom line up front: how much do people care about the formatting of
Wireshark's source code?
I would like to have indentation harmonized (and enforced consistently) across
the entire C code base. Preferably 4-space.
Don't care so much about other style issues. I don't think that needs to be
enforced.
Background: I'm looking into [#17253][1]. It's chiefly about removing editor
modelines from the footer of each source file in favour of just using
`.editorconfig` files. But by extension it's also about removing the exceptions
from `.editorconfig` files and making the formatting rules consistent across
files.
I took a manual pass at harmonizing the formatting of the C files in the root
of the repo and that was painful, so I researched automatic approaches for the
rest of our code. [Clang-Format][2] seems to be a popular approach for this
sort of thing.
Automatic code formatters in general, and clang-format in particular, are rigid
and somewhat naïve in how they do things. This is in contrast to the flexible
formatting practices we use. That's not a huge deal if we just want to reformat
once to harmonize our indentation levels and whatnot, and then return to
manually formatting based on the new standard.
On the other hand, a comment on !6298 suggested that automatic reformatting
could be integrated as a pre-commit hook and/or a CI step. That... also isn't a
huge deal, I guess. We'd have consistency across files at the price of slightly
less formatting freedom. (And of having another developer prerequisite to
install, if we did it as a pre-commit hook.)
But it's a decision that should be made by the dev community as a whole. So
what do you folks think? Is consistent formatting important to you? Would you
like to see it enforced with an automatic formatter?
(My proposed `.clang-format` file is in [!6298][3] and aims to capture the most
common practices used across the codebase. Please use that MR for discussions
about specific formatting details. This email is for the general discussion of
whether/how to apply and enforce formatting.)
Thanks for your time,
David Perry
he/him
[1]: https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/17253
[2]: https://releases.llvm.org/13.0.1/tools/clang/docs/ClangFormat.html
[3]: https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/6298
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
