On 10/01/2017 10:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I think we do want the endgame to be that .clang-format defines how > the code should look like. It's that we are not there yet, and I > think that is what we should say in this comment. > > Note that this style definition does not yet quite reflect > how we want our code to look like, and adjusting the rules > to match our style is still work in progress. Do not > blindly adjust the style of _existing_ code, without > checking if the code is styled incorrectly, or the style > definition in this file is still wrong. > > is what I should have suggested when writing my response. Pretty long but okay. I tried to be shorter and more implicit (also because the CodingGuidelines are already pretty verbose on not changing existing code style) and you're heading in the direction that there will be some clang-format definition that matches the desired coding style (I doubt that at least for the current clang-format versions, but that's another topic). Erm, so you're going to replace the comment? Or is it my task now to make a v3 patch with your text? (The latter doesn't look useful to me...) Stephan
