[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] CDT patch format submission
|
The only formatting I do is organize imports. Otherwise, I let the
original writer of the code make these kind of decisions.
My guess is that you'll have a hard time getting consensus on this,
especially on coding style. I'd rather make a strong suggestion to
minimize code changes to make it easier to deal with aging patches.
Doug Schaefer, IBM's Technical Lead, Eclipse CDT
Ottawa Lab, IBM Canada, Rational Software Division
"Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
12/15/2004 11:06 AM
Please respond to
cdt-dev
To
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [cdt-dev] CDT patch format submission
>
> With Eclipse 3.1 whatever we standardize on can be set on the project
> *and* have shared in the repository, I believe some of the Eclipse
> platform plugins (org.eclipse.ui) have gone this way.
>
>
> +1
>
Ping!! to other commiters
It may look like a "banal" subject ... but the list of CDT contributors
is growing and we need a certain consistency.
>
> Dave.
>
> Alain Magloire wrote:
> > Bonjour
> > the last couple of months reviewing/integrating patches was harder
then necessary
> > because of .. formatting changes:
> >
> > - moving inner classes from beginning to end
> > - moving inner classes from end to beginning
> > - Some folks do not like anonymous classes and ... extract them to
files,
> > - glossing over the brace indentations { }
> > - the "if ( condition ) " vs the "if (condition)" etc ..
> > ...
> > etc .. 'til ad nauseam
> >
> >
> > So about to standardise on the "Java Builtin Convention [builtin]"
formatter ?
> > Or whatever format .. but let just stick to one ... please.
> >
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
