[PATCH] D50055: Update the coding standard about NFC changes and whitespace

[Chandler Carruth via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

chandlerc added inline comments.


================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:395-408
+Commits with No Functional Change
+---------------------------------
+
+It may be permissible to commit changes without prior review when the changes
+have no semantic impact on the code if the changes being made are obvious and
+not invasive. For instance, removing trailing whitespace from a line, fixing a
+line ending to be consistent with the rest of the file, fixing a typo, code
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> hfinkel wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > chandlerc wrote:
> > > > I think this is a much broader statement than is warranted to address the specific problem. And I'm not completely comfortable with it.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think guidance around "no functional change" is the right way to give guidance about what is or isn't "obvious" and fine to commit with post-commit review personally.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd really suggest just being direct about *formatting* and whitespace changes, and specifically suggest that they not be made unless the file or code region in question is an area that the author is planning subsequent changes to.
> > > We talk about formatting and whitespace in the CodingStandards document, but we talk about obviousness and post-commit review in DeveloperPolicy. Where would you like these new words to live? To me, they're more about the policy and less about the coding standard -- the coding standard says what the code should look like and the policy says what you should and should not do procedurally, but then I feel the need to tie it back to "obviousness". How about this in the developer policy:
> > > ```
> > > The Obviousness of Formatting Changes
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > While formatting and whitespace changes may be "obvious", they can also create
> > > needless churn that causes difficulties for out-of-tree users carrying local
> > > patches. Do not commit formatting or whitespace changes unless they are related
> > > to a file or code region that you intend to make subsequent changes to. The
> > > formatting and whitespace changes should be highly localized, committed before
> > > you begin functionality-changing work on the code region, and the commit message
> > > should clearly state that the commit is not intended to change functionality,
> > > usually by stating it is :ref:`NFC <nfc>`.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you wish to make a change to formatting or whitespace that touches an entire
> > > library or code base, please seek pre-commit approval first.
> > > ```
> > I agree with @chandlerc about the current proposed text, and I think that this is better. I wonder if we want to insist on separating the commits, of if, combined localized commits are okay?
> > 
> It depends on how much noise there is when combining the commits; and when evaluating for that, we have to remember that people use different diff tools.
I like Hal's separation in the other comment.

Here, I tihnk we can address all of this by making this more of a (strong) suggestion and not a hard rule.

"Avoid committing formatting or whitespace only changes outside of code you plan to make subsequent changes to." or something similar.

Then it also becomes natural to suggest:

"Also, try to separate formatting or whitespace changes from functional changes, either by correcting the format first (ideally) or afterward."

I think you can also shorten some of the discussion along these lines.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D50055