> On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed Feb 25 2015 at 9:15:38 AM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> clang-format has finally gotten to the point where we can get it to
>> format our code similar, but not quite identical, to what we have today.
>> Doing all formatting programmatically has several benefits:
>>>
>>> It’s no longer up to subjective or personal preferences, we’ll learn to
>> live and love the clang-format coding style.
>>> It can be automated.
>>> It can also be used as a tool for people who want to work / see code in
>> a different style, but commit in our standard style.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have updated the .clang-format files that is in our Git master, we
>> might need to do a few more tweaks, but it’s getting pretty close. It does
>> require a very recent version of clang-format, the one I used is
>>>
>>> clang-format version 3.6.0 (tags/google/testing/2015-01-13)
>>
>> Does this completely destroy code history?
>>
>> J
>
>
> The simple answer to this is: "No, we still use git."
>
> But what I think you are really asking is, "Does `git blame` become less
> useful?"
>
> While it's true that a simple `git blame` will show lots of format changes
> instead of what you may deem more useful, I would argue there are better
> ways to find what you are looking for anyway:
> http://jfire.io/blog/2012/03/07/code-archaeology-with-git/
Yeah, that’s a good article. Even a simple -w -M fixes most of the pain. On a
clang-format’ed file, e.g.
heimdall (21:56) 300/0 $ git blame proxy/http/HttpSM.cc | grep 'Leif' | wc -l
1465
heimdall (21:56) 301/0 $ git blame -w -M proxy/http/HttpSM.cc | grep 'Leif' |
wc -l
680
Cheers,
— Leif
