On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:41:48AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2017-07-01 08:17, Antonio Radici wrote: > > > The only reason for the upstream switch was the code indenting > > changes, which would have make the neomutt patch bigger than the mutt > > source code, if we could get these in the main mutt source code that > > can help any proposal to restructure the patch tree; just to clarify: > > I'm not saying that this is a *prerequisite* for any proposal but this > > is the main reason for the upstream code switch. > > > > Do you feel that it is possible to come up to an agreement when it > > comes to the same indentation? clang-format should take care of that > > pretty much automatically. > > So, why can you not have a pre-configure step in debian/rules to run > clang-format and apply neomutt's indentation conventions to mutt's code? > I don't think you need upstream mutt's cooperation with that.
Good idea, but the patch is applied before the debian/rules commands are executed. The method you suggest would change the code while debian/rules runs, which is after the patches have been applied. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah
