From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3CA3894432 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:21:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4D3CA3894432 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 13RDLpJK032162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:21:56 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 13RDLpJK032162 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 296F61E01F; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Proposal: format GDB Python files with black To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210426162149.GU2610@embecosm.com> <20210426175022.GV2610@embecosm.com> <20210427075444.GW2610@embecosm.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:21:50 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210427075444.GW2610@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:21:51 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:21:59 -0000 > I have no objections to adopting the use of black, my only request > would be that we formally make it a policy that "rogue" re-formatting > hunks, as we discussed above, should be fixed in a separate commit, > and not included in random patches. > > For me, one of the great things about working on GDB is the generally > good quality of the commits, and I feel that if commits start > including extra reformatting this would be a step backwards. I agree. I thought it was kind of obvious, because it's a continuation of what we do today: if somebody includes an unrelated formatting change in a patch, you'll tell them about it. But it's true that the risk of it happening with an automated is perhaps greater, as people will run the tool and not carefully check the output. I happen to carefully check the diff of my patches before sending them, but maybe not everyone does that. So I'll make sure to include that in the "rules to follow" for re-formatting. > Never mind, given the above I think you've answered my questions. > > Thanks for your time, Thanks for the questions, you raised good points I overlooked. Simon