From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
To: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
Cc: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>,
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>,
Simon Marchi via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:23:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7112932f-4260-2f33-e619-c7130e0abb20@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bklxtx7r.fsf@redhat.com>
On 2/13/23 15:13, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/13/23 11:54, Andrew Burgess via Gdb wrote:
>>> Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 05:13:37PM +0000, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>>>>> Simon Marchi via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org> writes:
>>>>>> I would suggest mandating one version, and for that version to
>>>>>> continuously be the latest stable version of clang-format, like we do
>>>>>> for Black. When a new version comes out, we don't have to wonder if /
>>>>>> when we move the next version. Someone just pushes a patch re-formating
>>>>>> the code to the next version, if there are some differences. It keeps
>>>>>> the overhead to a minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dislike our policy of using the latest version of black, and would
>>>>> argue that always using the latest version _increases_ the overhead,
>>>>> rather than reducing it.
>>>>
>>>> Have you found the python formatting flagged by black "unstable"?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>> buildbot uses the latest black as comes with fedora stable and I don't
>>>> remember it flagging issues on upgrades. But maybe it hasn't been
>>>> running for long enough? It has been running since July last year. Are
>>>> you running a much older black? Does it produce different formatting?
>>>
>>> No. And we don't have a huge volume of Python code. Both of these
>>> points (stability + small code size) is why I've never said anything.
>>> That doesn't mean I think the idea of constantly chasing the latest
>>> version is a good idea.
>>>
>>> In fact, it probably makes it worse. I _don't_ update black. Why?
>>> Because what I have just works. When something does change I'll
>>> certainly commit some incorrectly formatted code.
>>>
>>> Does that really matter? I don't think so. It'll be an easy fix, it's
>>> just annoying.
>>>
>>
>> I suppose that's the point of introducing auto-formatters. If some incorrect formatting is
>> pushed alongside some code, it is not a big deal. But having to manually chase some format and fix it by hand (as we do now)
>> before it can go in is potentially worse.
>>
>> It is also a burden for reviewing. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing people should be doing manually at
>> this point in time.
>
> I've never bought this argument.
>
> This makes perfect sense in a corporate environment, where you can know
> everyone is using the same tools. But for a distributed project, I
> don't think we can rely on every contributor using, or remembering to
> use the formatting tools correctly.
>
> Ideally we don't want every commit, or a daily commit, where someone
> runs clang-format and posts the fix (obviously this will happen, but the
> goal would be to keep this to a minimum, right?), so reviewers still
> need to think about formatting when reviewing patches.
>
> For larger patches, this is easy enough, I install the patch in my local
> tree, run clang-format, and if any changes show up, I immediately reject
> the patch. But I _still_ have to think about formatting, I just do
> different things.
>
> For smaller patches that I might previously have reviewed in my email
> client; well now I _really_ need to think about formatting, because if I
> see anything that's even slightly weird, I can no longer make a
> judgement call on if it's formatted reasonably, I absolutely _have_ to
> install the patch and clang-format it in order to check it was formatted
> correctly.
>
> Now, where this might save time is if we had some kind of git hook which
> could validate the code was formatted correctly and reject push attempts
> if they are not formatted. Then I could stop thinking about
> formatting. But until then .... I don't think reviewers will be able to
> stop asking: is this formatted correctly?
>
That's what I have in mind. Some pre-commit hook that checks/does things. Obviously we're not there yet, but that would be the most convenient way.
I think anything that needs to be checked by hand wouldn't be an improvement compared to the current process.
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>>
>> Obviously the burden is different for different people and different setups.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If I had a choice then, personally, I'd vote against using clang-format
>>>>> at all, but it feels like there's a majority in favour, so if we do have
>>>>> to go down this route, I'd rather we adopted the same policy as for
>>>>> autotools and C++ versioning. That is, pick something that works for
>>>>> us, and commit to it over the medium term. That way at least, I can
>>>>> build a single version of clang-format and know that it's going to last
>>>>> me for a while.
>>>>
>>>> But is there already a verions that works? I think that is the
>>>> difference between the python black formatter for python code and the
>>>> clang-format for C and C++ code. It seems for the python code there is
>>>> a supported format that matches what is used, but for clang-format
>>>> there is not (yet?).
>>>
>>> I'm a little confused by your point here. You (correctly) point out
>>> above that the output from black is pretty stable across versions.
>>>
>>> But here it almost seems like you're suggesting that we should chase the
>>> latest clang-format because it doesn't (currently) support the style we
>>> use. Which would seem to suggest we are hoping it _will_ change, which
>>> suggests output instability, which, surely, is a bad thing? But like I
>>> said, I didn't really understand the question here...
>>>
>>> I would suggest that if we did start using clang-format, then that
>>> indicates we are happy enough with its output. If we're happy enough
>>> with its output today then I think we can be happy with the output for 1
>>> (or even 2) years before looking to see if an updated version offers
>>> improved formatting.
>>>
>>> Remember, there are folk who maintain out of tree forks of GDB. And
>>> though we shouldn't make policy choices just to accommodate them, I'd
>>> hate for us to go out of our way to make their lives harder just for the
>>> sake of chasing the latest version of some tool.
>>
>> I think Mark's point is just that we haven't settled on a particular gnu-for-clang-format rule set.
>>
>> Yes, there is a gnu style there already, but we haven't decide if it is good enough or not.
>>
>> We just need to play with it for a bit and see if people overall think it is good enough.
>
> OK.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-13 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-27 10:47 Luis Machado
2022-10-28 16:16 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-28 16:51 ` John Baldwin
2022-10-28 16:54 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-31 9:28 ` Luis Machado
2022-10-31 13:17 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-31 13:37 ` Joel Brobecker
2022-10-31 14:15 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-31 17:31 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-11 17:13 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-12 12:43 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-13 11:54 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-13 12:52 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-13 14:24 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-13 14:42 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-13 15:13 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-13 15:23 ` Luis Machado [this message]
2023-02-14 5:48 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-15 14:47 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-16 4:14 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-16 9:51 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-16 10:16 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-16 11:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-16 13:31 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-16 15:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-14 13:07 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-14 14:23 ` Pedro Alves
2023-02-14 13:00 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-15 14:36 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-13 14:05 ` Tom Tromey
2022-12-15 10:17 ` Luis Machado
2023-01-01 22:02 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-20 17:30 ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-20 20:30 ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-27 15:50 ` Lancelot SIX
2023-01-27 23:50 ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-30 17:43 ` Lancelot SIX
2023-01-30 18:46 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-30 21:08 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-04 11:36 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-31 10:00 ` Lancelot SIX
2022-12-13 2:48 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2023-02-16 8:53 anix
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7112932f-4260-2f33-e619-c7130e0abb20@arm.com \
--to=luis.machado@arm.com \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=simark@simark.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).