On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:50 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Now, we could well pick one that's longer than 80 characters. 132 is a > > common terminal size and it would avoid needing to rewrap all of those > > lines. But sticking with 80 columns is also fine, and we'll just need > > to send some patches accordingly. > > As long as people do not start sending an overly wide code that > consistently are 130 columns wide, I am fine. > > Let's not encourage people to use automation as excuses for sending > unreadable mess and (worse yet) push back reviewer comments when > such issues that cannot be corrected with automation are pointed > out. In my experience, clang-format will reflow a line of code so that it fills the configured line-length. So, even if you manually wrap the code to fit nicely in 80 columns, if clang-format is set to 132 columns, then it will automatically reflow your nicely hand-wrapped 80-column code out to 132 columns, which I think is not what we'd want (at least those of us who always work in 80-column terminals and editors). But perhaps there is a configuration knob which disables clang-format's "reflow-to-occupy-full-width" behavior? brian?
