RE: [cdt-dev] CDT patch format submission

[John Camelon <jcamelon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 from me ... why not :-)

JohnC
www.eclipse.org/cdt

cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/16/2004 07:30:18
AM:

> +1 from me ...  I'll conform to whatever standard we choose.
 I don't
> know if the formatter is the way to go (ie do we bother to retrofit
> old code).
> 
> At the very least committers should feel free to reject a patch based
> on "non-conformance" with either the existing style of the
code being
> patched or for new source files, lack of consistancy with other sources.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alain Magloire
> > Sent: December 14, 2004 11:30 AM
> > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [cdt-dev] CDT patch format submission
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev