r212591 - clang-format: Revamp function declaration/definition indentation.

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Wed Jul 9 03:26:14 PDT 2014

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:

> Sure, would it be OK to revert this change meanwhile to get the build bot
>>> clean again.
>> No. I think it is highly likely, we are going to stick with this change.
> Daniel, I believe it is common habit that if someone requests a revert,
> this revert is performed and the discussion takes place.

I really don't think revert is the right approach here. I've said that on
this thread, before this thread, and I'll continue to say that.

Fundamentally, I do not think that a perfect format-enforcing build bot is
a good idea, much less sufficient cause to revert. There are no *tests*
failing or *builds* failing because of this commit. This isn't blocking
progress for anyone. Quite the contrary, reverting the patch would block
progress. While its cool that you disagree about the bot being a good idea,
I don't think that means we have to revert changes to clang-format just
because of the bot...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140709/f63cbfc6/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list