[PATCH] lib: Fix whitespace in params.c

[Michael Adam]

Chris,

On 2014-08-11 at 07:31 -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 05:47 AM, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > 
> > Review&push would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Volker
> > 
> 
> -1
> 
> If you are going to change the formatting style of a file, run it through
> indent and change the whole thing to match the project "standard".

Absolutely no:

A mere white-space change is by far not as intrusive as a
general reformatting. As Volker's commit message indicates,
you can verify with "git show -w" that this commit does not
change anything (except for white spaces).

Also, I don't believe that "indent" has a mode to fully match our
README.coding guidelines.

> Also, this isn't a "fix", it's just a change.  (This isn't a bug, it's a
> preference.)

Well it is not a fix of a code bug, but of a deficiency of that code
file, namely the deficiency of this code file to use the desired
formatting with respect to white spaces.

> The formatting style in this particular file is known as
> "whitesmith", and it was once quite popular.  I know, because it's my coding
> style.  I also know that I haven't touched that file since I rewrote it for
> Samba 2 more than 10 years ago.

Note that the pure proposal of the patch does not imply any
criticism of the author of the orignal file or the code itself.
It just tries to adapt the file more to today's standards in
Samba in the least obtrusive way.

> So, my vote is to either leave it as is or to completely convert it to the
> current preferred formatting style.

The disadvantage of that would be that it really disturbs the
history. Git can detect (and ignore) whitespace changes, but
it can't detect mere reformattings that go beyond that.
(Git blame works across whitespace changes, not more intrusive
reformattings.)

It has hence been a guideline we followed for quite a while
now that mere whitespace changes are OK, but reformatting
patches beyond that are not.

Hence I'd -1 committing an "indent" run on that file.
So where are we? Leaving that file as it is? ... :-)

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140811/33051123/attachment.pgp>