From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp51.i.mail.ru (smtp51.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B05A0469719 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:23:41 +0300 (MSK) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:23:37 +0000 From: Kirill Yukhin Message-ID: <20201111082337.65cqw4rtrru5xhmo@tarantool.org> References: <20201102073503.i7cdfb2qc3xt7fjf@tarantool.org> <20201110141651.sa7al2ms7ggx2jxe@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 5/5] Apply Clang formatter List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladislav Shpilevoy Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Hello, On 10 Nov 21:38, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > > On 02 Nov 22:05, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > >> Ok. I will review the whole patch, every single line. Don't push > >> it beforehand then. > > > > In my previous e-mail I've explicitly stated that current formatter > > is not suitable for us. Quote: > > > >>> After all, having p.3 and p.8 unresolved I guess we cannot proceed > >>> without changes to formatter. > > > > Please, see what does it mean here [1]. > > > > [1] - https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=ru&text=After%20all%2C%20having%20p.3%20and%20p.8%20unresolved%20I%20guess%20we%20cannot%20proceed%20without%20changes%20to%20formatter. > > Ok, lets play quotes. Here is yours: > > I am not sure. Anyway I think this is not a blocker for having fully automated > code formatting. > > Talking of this quote: > > After all, having p.3 and p.8 unresolved I guess we cannot proceed > without changes to formatter. > > It is not the same as saying that we won't use the formatter. You just said, > you will try to fix review points 3 and 8. Which were not even the worst. > Which leads to the point you are ok with the other issues. Tons of > other issues, as I found in the detailed review. And I am not ok with these > issues. You understood completely correct. To the moment we cannot use Clang formatter since it has unresolvable flaws (in p.3 and p.8). But that doesn't mean we won't use one of code checkers if found them suitable or if Clang formatter will become better. Thanks for sharing your `not ok`, all wyou contributions seems very valuable, however this doesn't seem to be a blocker. -- Regards, Kirill Yukhin