Re: changes in chord names formatting (1503, 1572) (issue 4981052)

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:28:55PM +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/3/11 10:50 AM, "Adam Spiers" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >and given my strong aversion to (a) a mix of indentation styles within
>> >a single file, and (b) commits which mix whitespace changes with real
>> >coding changes, I thought this was the best way to proceed.  But I
>> >agree the sensible thing would be to fix all .scm files in one go.
>> 
>> There were actually some comments from senior developers opposing this
>> plan, which was part of the reason it's never been finished.
>
> My understanding is that Jan insisted on the script matching
> emacs' formatting, but as long as that's done he won't object.
> (come to think of it, that may have been private email after the
> main discussion died down)
>
> It's a shame that emacs doesn't support the "official extension
> language of GNU", otherwise we could just use their .elisp
> indentation directly.  :(

Hm?  Emacs uses scheme-mode for .scm files.  Where is the problem with
that?

>> Rietveld doesn't prevent multiple patches per issue.  Our policy of
>> testing each commit to ensure that it doesn't break build prevents
>> multiple patches per issue.
>
> I thought that rietveld automatically squashed all patches into a
> single large diff -- which I agree isn't precisely the same as
> "preventing" multiple patches, but it doesn't precisely "support"
> them either.  :)

You can just upload them as a sequence.  But that's really not the same
as different revisions.

-- 
David Kastrup