Hi Peff, On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:54:30PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > > And removing that gives me a clean output. I have no idea why my clang > > > doesn't like these (but presumably yours does). It's clang-format-5.0 in > > > Debian unstable (and clang-format-3.8, etc). > > > > Those must be features in version 6 (which is what I seem to have > > installed on my machine). > > OK, that makes sense. The most recent one package for Debian unstable is > 5.0. AFAICT 5.0 is actually in release freeze for another week or two, > and 6 is just bleeding-edge that moved on after the release freeze a few > weeks ago. > > I'm not sure which version it makes sense to target as a minimum, but > probably not 6 yet. :) I agree. There is most likely a middle path between too old and too new, and with the current pace of the review 5.0 will probably be good enough by the time this patch series can possibly hit `master`. So I'd guess 5.0 would be a good version to aim for. Besides, it may not matter *all* that much which version we target: As I mentioned elsewhere, the contributor experience would most likely be vastly improved if this was a bot, say, monitoring GitHub Pull Requests. It could use filter-branch to apply clang-format to each commit's diff and report back to the Pull Request either by saying that the style is okay, or by linking to another repository where the fixed commits live (combined with instructions how to update the local branch). Ciao, Dscho
