On 11/13/23 20:07, Pedro Falcato wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:58 AM Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> recently I encountered an uncrustify failure on github. >> >> The reason was that my local uncrustify was *more recent* (73.0.8) than >> the one we use in edk2 CI (which is 73.0.3, per the edk2 file >> ".pytool/Plugin/UncrustifyCheck/uncrustify_ext_dep.yaml"). > > Wait, you can use upstream uncrustify? I'm just using whatever > uncrustify version I took from the project-mu fork...
Apologies -- for edk2 purposes (and I don't use uncrustify for anything else), I consider <https://projec...@dev.azure.com/projectmu/Uncrustify/_git/Uncrustify> "upstream". > >> >> Updating the version number in the YAML file (i.e., advancing edk2 to >> version 73.0.8) seems easy enough, but: >> >> - Do you think 73.0.8 is mature enough for adoption in edk2? >> >> This upstream uncrustify release was tagged in April (and I can't see >> any more recent commits), so I assume it should be stable. >> >> - Would the version update require a whole-tree re-uncrustification? > > Please, no. I didn't mind doing an initial reformatting at first, but > doing this continuously is both 1) problem-prone 2) just amazing > amounts of churn. > Let's say I have version N, you have version N+1 - we may never get > any final, formatted output as your version formats it differently > from mine. Your argument against a continuously reformatted code base is well received; just a small correction: we should never have an N vs. N+1 dilemma. What CI uses is the authoritative version. > > I don't know how the CI is doing its thing atm (I haven't merged > anything myself to edk2), but the uncrustify check should be relaxed > to just a warning. I don't think that's going to happen. Everybody ignores warnings when in a rush, or when the same warnings pop up for the 10th time. > There's nothing wrong with what my uncrustify > version is formatting to, there's nothing wrong with yours either, and > CI isn't necessarily wrong either. > > And, to be fair, I already find uncrustify a large pain in the butt to > use (requiring a custom fork really does not help), but I find the > benefits worth it *locally*, as my coding style is also quite > different from the NT-esque style. Funnily enough, my stance is quite the opposite. I happen to disagree with some patterns that uncrustify enforces, but I'm thankful that at any given state of CI (= using any given version of uncrustify), we can't have any more debates about patch formatting (that is, it's especially its central nature that I like). I've found uncrustify relatively easy to use locally, too. All in all I'm not trying to upset the status quo, it's just a question about a version bump, and how we'd deal with any fallout from that. Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#111200): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111200 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102559740/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
