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

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Wed Jul 9 05:40:03 PDT 2014

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:

> However, in cases where we see policy changes that raise concerns, would
> it be a problem to set the policy flag to match the original behavior until
> the discussion is over? (This happens maybe once every six months)

Yes, I think that is reasonable.

However I disagree that this "policy change" qualified for that. First, I
don't think we had a policy previously, we had an accident. Second, I think
that the new behavior is in fact more consistent and useful across the
board based on Daniel's summary. I think with the level of evidence that
this is likely the technically correct direction for LLVM's style and a
lack of any explicit prior discussion of the subject, it should be fine to
make the change and let the discussion focus around reversing course.

Naturally, opinions on this will differ, and that's OK. =D However, I think
we should trust the clang-format authors' judgement to make these calls. If
it turns out there is disagreement in the community, we should just start
that discussion rather forcing them to do extra work to add an option we
may never need. Maybe others feel strongly that we need a more conservative
policy here, but I'm still erring on the side of letting the developers run
faster. It feels like it fits the model of post-commit review in general.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140709/951cb427/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list