> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:47 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> James and I’ve been looking at some changes to clang-format, wanted to take
>> it here first. Just running the new version of clang-format produces a patch
>> of about 6,500 lines. This is mostly removal of superfluous empty lines, and
>> removing a space between a type cast and the variable. These are all good
>> changes IMO (basically bug-fixes in clang-format).
>>
>> In addition to that, we’re contemplating the following changes:
>>
>> 1) Change the maximum number of empty lines from “2” to “1”. This adds about
>> 10k to the patch size, and likely has little impact on being able to
>> cherry-pick across LTS versions.
>>
>> 2) Change the struct brace indentation to be the same as we do for “class",
>> i.e.
>>
>> struct Config
>> {
>>
>> instead of as it is today:
>>
>> struct Config {
>>
>>
>> This was not possible to do with the old version of clang-format, but it is
>> now. This adds about 10k lines to the patch.
>>
>> 3) clang-format has an option to “sort” #include directives in the source
>> files. This makes our builds fail in magnificent ways, but obviously we
>> could fix that. I don’t know how much work it would be, but likely much more
>> than we can expect to get done before 6.2? Unclear how large this diff would
>> be, since we have to manually fix a bunch of it.
>>
>>
>> My personal “votes” are
>>
>> 1: +1
>> 2: +0
>> 3: -0
>
> I'm +1, +1, -1 for now.
>
> I'd be +1 on (3) using IncludeCategories to specify a standard ordering and
> fixing the build. But let's treat this as a separate change.
BTW is there a way to get clang-format to prefer to break lines a little
shorter? As a separate change to the above ...
J
