From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDC41F4B4 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392429AbgLKAoq (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 19:44:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58940 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1733153AbgLKAoP (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 19:44:15 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com (mail-wm1-x344.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8D82C0613CF for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:43:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id g185so7071126wmf.3 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:43:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c+cmaO3HSbaLVXG8n9Dx55EWjbTr38xRYTrkwUFQslc=; b=b2GrsO7yDpBluA1NE1qVui9jfbqCtOG7ZY49VpcswG+ZHoI9c2eJpisHwYyckg0GyX wSlSsJU3z5yQ1+IH1OJXXswhPuNb1oi1Iyq1NB+Ou8cfYFafPcPH4rc2LVGdsFJellch mB+0QWFl4RvjEawZrgcggZ5M9ViE03zBoUBp93bAN78Sco0c4Yd7c7F5G2D1Udm2Qn95 quB7rcnevgeCu/oELinUM3HDcSSD7VT5ZPmsGQSfOp0dOGC+PZaesuxqR+rJ3zgmSR49 2GW28qB6MX9QmTdUhiIrdKtIX1CVE9MpnH9daUI/16NDfaGOLGfrNIx1qmEYjawdSa2x 04Wg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c+cmaO3HSbaLVXG8n9Dx55EWjbTr38xRYTrkwUFQslc=; b=cYMK+gfmBEsykTJE60idP2sicYH43wX85lVRu7PYbCTnxWDF3lJwJRzKIlXgvrL0p0 0PVaPR1v1/ZeCJrmGjEHlNdVFBueV6vS83riH9mgaFShE2eUIs5dUn8RMQw+h5oHn1S/ 6sjd/YY1Bhxjj40TxOecjiWPiBOAM4dgShWU+K24pm4j/uIDwSK56i7CMP6FT43OkDrE E3FEv1GDfdGVPsjE0vzCxgRdkIKUEdV8iobFsFuRsz8MP36RSitCS4HoesmPZ9ZIrzdk 1ukiWqS/+pN8NgW8tb54b2aFVo3DWegziskuDk7RlgOeN9ES5xmMb4SiuvXi9nGLCkXb WPtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532IpCGsruxk0QK908KKjU1Mjo4iQvSRfMUdtErIm3ZRHY3sTkrV OMEPqoe2F5+QqOe3BNK6ivAQnZ7T/5rxgj5290Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1ZS6HQlb6GjPn3oeilSCVIeqgMPjj1qNXH4iTevIynJ1JHhc0WDsVhjLfS3pVijnSdJT6nuZxzc5FoRbposQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:df57:: with SMTP id w84mr10769278wmg.37.1607647409620; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:43:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201209065537.48802-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20201209065537.48802-2-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Felipe Contreras Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:43:18 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Add project-wide .vimrc configuration To: Jeff King Cc: Git , Junio C Hamano , Emily Shaffer , "Brian M. Carlson" , Aaron Schrab , Denton Liu , Christian Couder Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:27 AM Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:55:55PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > - t0 is specifying not to indent function return types when they > > > appear on a separate line. But our style is not to put those return > > > types on a separate line, anyway. Do we need this? > > > > Right. I recall at some point it was annoying me that types were auto > > indented magically at wrong times. Testing "ts" that doesn't seem to > > happen anymore, but it also doesn't seem to be working at all. > > > > Do you see some difference from "t0" and "ts" with: > > > > void > > main(void) { } > > No, but picking it does seem to impact a larger example. If I open up > wt-status.c and modify the first function to be: > > static const char * > color(int slot, struct wt_status *s) > { > > then reindenting it with t0 versus ts makes a difference (and I do > prefer the t0 behavior). I see. For some reason this is indented: void main(void) { But not this: void main(void) { > But we would not use that split-line style in > our project in the first place, I don't think. No, we don't use it, but I recall some problems when not setting it (perhaps pasting code with that style). Anyway, I can't reproduce any of the problems, so I'm fine with dropping it. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras