Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] status: collect per-file data for --porcelain=v2

Eric Wong [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

Not a big deal (no need to resend for this one alone), but let's
make the above properly formatted, i.e.

		if (ce_stage(ce)) {
                	...
		} else {
                	...
		}                        

Do I understand correctly that your objections is against having the curly
brace before the "else" on its own line?

If so, when did our coding style change? I vividly remember that we
strongly favored putting the "else" on a new line after a closing brace,
to make diffs nicer in case the braces were removed or added.

AFAIK, Linux kernel CodingStyle has always been what Junio
suggested (just w/o the trailing spaces :),
and we inherit from that.

What Eric said.

While I admit that I sometimes break line between "}" and "else {"
by inertia when I am being careless and get caught by checkpatch.pl
myself, I do not recall trying to justify it; you probably may
remember somebody else saying that, but I don't recall anybody
making that argument on the list, and more importantly I don't
recall us making that our style based on that argument.

The only two and half kinds of warnings we knowingly ignore from
scripts/checkpatch.pl in the Linux kernel source tree are:

 * "Avoid typedefs."  We do avoid making graduitous use of typedef to
   hide a structure behind a type and pretty much limit ourselves to
   use it for (callback) function types, though.

 * "We've never heard of Helped-by/Mentored-by footers"; well,
   kernel folks may not, but we have ;-)

 * "No spaces for bitfield width".  This may not be justifyable, but
   the majority of our bitfield widths are defined in the way not
   blessed by checkpatch.pl checker.