On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 09:32, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> And yes, in "harm" I mostly refer to svn blame annoyances and to
> patch/branch merge conflicts where context that causes the conflict
> only changed in whitespace.
Your tools are limiting the quality of your work.
Are we not the toolmakers
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 4, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Documentation may be a bit more relaxed, and if you have one doc
>> maintainer approve and the other abstain that may be more boring
>> that you might hope for. :-)
>
> Actually, I was aiming
On May 4, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Documentation may be a bit more relaxed, and if you have one doc
> maintainer approve and the other abstain that may be more boring
> that you might hope for. :-)
Actually, I was aiming for a global person to ack gcc/*... This could be less
bo
On May 4, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I explicitly approve trailing whitespace removal from all .texi files and
> other documentation not imported from upstream sources outside of GCC
> (subject to handling generated files properly, so any changes to tm.texi
> should be done by c
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >> I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
> >> of cleaning up things.
> >>
> >> Unless someone else indicates otherwise, I believe this patch is
> >> rejected.
> > I think we *shou
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
>> of cleaning up things.
>>
>> Unless someone else indicates otherwise, I believe this patch is
>> rejected.
> I think we *should* make such formatting cleanups (not just trailing
> w
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
> > To what do we owe this tradition other than laziness?
>
> By flat out rejecting style fixing patches, you preserve the
> annotations made by vc-blame (svn blame). That's the only r
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
> > I think we *should* make such formatting cleanups (not just trailing
> > whitespace removal, but other changes to match formatting conventions,
> > including fixing leading whitespace in C code to use tabs where it doesn't
> > as well as more visible ch
On May 4, 2011, at 3:08 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
>> >> sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>>
>> I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
>> of cleaning up things.
>>
>> Unless someone else ind
On May 3, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:52:25 +0200 (CEST), Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
>> >> sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>>
>> I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
>> of cleaning up things.
>>
>> U
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>
> I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
> of cleaning up things.
>
> Unless someone else indicates otherwise, I believe this patch is
> rejected.
I thin
On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:52:25 +0200 (CEST), Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>
> I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
> of cleaning up things.
>
> Unless someone else indicates otherwise, I believe this patch is
sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
I believe we usually don't do whitespace changes just for the sake
of cleaning up things.
Unless someone else indicates otherwise, I believe this patch is
rejected.
Gerald
sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
---
trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi | 82 ++--
1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index c154958..cdbf69f 100644
14 matches
Mail list logo
