tabs

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)

Re: tabs

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Hmmm... the issue with that, however, is that backports
to 1.3 will come from trunk (mostly) and they won't apply
cleanly if trunk is detab but 1.3 is entab.

On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Will do trunk then...
>
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:27 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
>>> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
>>> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
>>> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)
>>
>> Please don't :(  Detab trunk/ if you would - otherwise the noise
>> of which diff's are applied gets harder to read.  Since 1.3.x
>> is in maintenance, cosmetics are no longer the best.
>>
>> If you have something to handle the horrible >80 col source that
>> people have thrown in, that would be great too :)
>>
>> Bill
>>
>

Re: tabs

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Will do trunk then...

On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:27 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
>> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
>> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
>> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)
>
> Please don't :(  Detab trunk/ if you would - otherwise the noise
> of which diff's are applied gets harder to read.  Since 1.3.x
> is in maintenance, cosmetics are no longer the best.
>
> If you have something to handle the horrible >80 col source that
> people have thrown in, that would be great too :)
>
> Bill
>

Re: tabs

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> 
> But if we do only in trunk and not in 1.3.x I guess backports become
> much harder as svn merge tends to fail more often.
> So I would propose to do on trunk *AND* 1.3.x.
> Regarding the noise: I guess detabing 1.3.x is more of one off thing
> and clearly labeled commit messages should avoid any confusion.

Well, my first concern is always able to identify "what broke" between
1.3.n and 1.3.n+1 and viewvc really sucks in terms of being able to do
an --ignore-whitespace diff.

But I guess that's a flaw in viewvc, if the crowd would rather keep these
consistent, then the small change between 1.3.0 and 1.3.1 shouldn't be bad.

So I'll remove my objection Jim, detabify away

Re: tabs

[Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>]

On 06/13/2008 09:27 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
>> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
>> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
>> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)
> 
> Please don't :(  Detab trunk/ if you would - otherwise the noise
> of which diff's are applied gets harder to read.  Since 1.3.x
> is in maintenance, cosmetics are no longer the best.
> 
> If you have something to handle the horrible >80 col source that
> people have thrown in, that would be great too :)

But if we do only in trunk and not in 1.3.x I guess backports become
much harder as svn merge tends to fail more often.
So I would propose to do on trunk *AND* 1.3.x.
Regarding the noise: I guess detabing 1.3.x is more of one off thing
and clearly labeled commit messages should avoid any confusion.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: tabs

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)

Please don't :(  Detab trunk/ if you would - otherwise the noise
of which diff's are applied gets harder to read.  Since 1.3.x
is in maintenance, cosmetics are no longer the best.

If you have something to handle the horrible >80 col source that
people have thrown in, that would be great too :)

Bill

Re: tabs

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)

+1.

It makes it far easier to stick to a style if the code you are working 
on already conforms to that style.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: tabs

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> We've never really instituted a specific coding
> style, ala httpd

Suppose it's time to fix http://apr.apache.org/guidelines.html ;-)

Wish I had free cycles.

Re: tabs

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Garrett Rooney
<ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> It's just a pain.  I much more prefer reformatting to meet style
> guidelines as code is modified for some other reason.

+1.

Do it for 2.x, but not during the 1.x timeline.  -- justin

Re: tabs

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
> Quoting Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>:
>
>> Honestly, I loathe tabs as much as the next guy, but I actually
>> dislike the idea of wholesale reformatting because it makes it harder
>> to figure out where a bit of code came from.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> It's just a pain.  I much more prefer reformatting to meet style
>> guidelines as code is modified for some other reason.
>
> I would prefer that too.

+1

Re: tabs

[Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>]

Quoting Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>:

> Honestly, I loathe tabs as much as the next guy, but I actually
> dislike the idea of wholesale reformatting because it makes it harder
> to figure out where a bit of code came from.

Exactly.

> It's just a pain.  I much more prefer reformatting to meet style
> guidelines as code is modified for some other reason.

I would prefer that too.

All that being said, if others feel that getting rid if tabs is all  
that important, I won't oppose it.

-- 
Bojan

Re: tabs

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)

Honestly, I loathe tabs as much as the next guy, but I actually
dislike the idea of wholesale reformatting because it makes it harder
to figure out where a bit of code came from.

For example, trying to track down the commit some problematic code
came from changes from the old way:

1) Find code snippit.
2) Run svn blame.
3) Read log message from commit to see if it's just being really
clever, or being really dumb.

To the new way:

1) Find code snippit.
2) Run svn blame.
3) Discover that line was changed when we removed all tabs.  Crap.
4) Run svn blame one revision prior to when we removed all tabs.
5) Find the actual commit you're looking for.

It's just a pain.  I much more prefer reformatting to meet style
guidelines as code is modified for some other reason.

-garrett

Re: tabs

[Ryan Bloom <rb...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Topic for a fun conversation: Should we detab the various
> APR source? We've never really instituted a specific coding
> style, ala httpd, but 1.3.x might not be a bad place to start.
> I'm proposing this for post-1.3.1 release, btw :)

Way to stir the pot Jim.   :-)

I would say go for it.

Ryan