X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T0nkT+1I9SsAGoupKWlUiBIdTMHiuzE8PP2xEUJmHGk=; b=0tJiT1ynuFJWfu6FbrCZMVPcsf1hShv5KR7pdKohqdcD3fHARq66lZvHnD7YwNwInR nZ2Y0uvZqk2DMwZN4KtYpSCxWRSY4n/dTqVR8cWMoV1xa4TpAaYkRTzY9E6Y6x5tqg0G GFUPsIE41Mk+ACPX2UnB+CmUSTXKbsmfxQb5PCLWNzhgEgd7FtccdQbR74XDbC3HofFn hXfr1sDr7smTQH0EzoptJVO6QrcctoSbZcgGdoMfc+2SnTXr9LyV9iCtWB+OpMRUIpga HxHrSGAf5J7cgeMpiG51Aic98VvtzRKrMPY3SR6QzPLLaJ4VhWGC4SfZv2x1bm466WCC C1BA== X-Received: by 10.194.95.199 with SMTP id dm7mr111720469wjb.15.1452153054428; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:50:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:50:52 +0100 From: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Merging stuff. How to make it happen Message-Id: <20160107085052.b765ac777d059e3f3c9fc411@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <568DFDAD.3040700@iee.org> References: <20160106192411 DOT 7d9fd782 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <20160106190750 DOT 32335 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <568DFDAD DOT 3040700 AT iee DOT org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk I do not care to much about coding style but if coding standard will be an extra burden for developers development effort will go down. I had to quit my job a few months ago then focus shifted from development to document handling, mainly howto number documents. On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 05:54:53 +0000 "M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" wrote: > I think you should propose a change (of reformatting code) .. and let it > 'sink' in .. and generate discussion .. and then set an appropriate > release/milestone to achieve by. Coders can therefore share the burden > amongst them, to achieve the goal, and Voila, you have code conforming > to a 'standard' you're agreed on :) > > Michael. > > On 07/01/16 04:56, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via > > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > > >> Indeed - we can document requirements, but auto-reformating large > >> chunks of > >> the code will cause un-necessary pain for people (like myself), who have > >> outstanding patches that eventually want to be finished up and > >> committed to > >> HEAD. > >> > >> Peter > > > > Btw, if the project does decide to auto-reformat, please advertise > > this on the list, there may be forks out there. > > > > I have the opposite of your problem: I'd like to reformat pcb-rnd, but > > so far resisted the temptation to make my patches easier to apply to > > mainline or other forks. Once the mainline makes that move, I won't > > have a reason not to do it, this why I'd like to know about it by the > > time it happens. > > > > Regards, > > > > Igor2