From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199610090951.FAA01194@shado.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: indent
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 05:51:55 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <9610081858.aa29727@paris.ics.uci.edu> from "Roy T. Fielding" at
 Oct 8, 96 06:58:30 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> > Oh yeah... does the current source "agree" with that (ie: is the
> > current CVS tree code pre-indented)? If not, then now might NOT
> > be a good time to start changing it to reflect it; I've seen
> > many a code mangled via (GNU)indent. That is, unless we want to
> > hold off the beta-release until we know that the indentification
> > worked OK :)
> 
> I have never seen code break from being indent-ified -- the only thing
> I've seen happen is the comments get messed up. 

The usual times I've seen things screwed up is when indent gets
confused with #ifdefs and comments. This is with GNUindent,
however, and older versions so the problem may be resolved
(I'll have to check gnu.utils.bugs)

> 
> On the other hand, I don't intend to do it all at once either -- indent'ing
> is something that gets done one file at a time, and it will take a
> couple iterations to get the profile right (what I committed was just
> those options that we agreed on -- there are many others which may
> require tuning to get right).  However, I think it can be accomplished
> before the current buglist gets closed-out (and it won't hurt any more
> than the current situation if we publish the first beta with only a
> portion if the code indent'ed).

Let's do it then...

+1


-- 
Jim Jagielski  << jim@jaguNET.com >>   |   "If we took the bones out
  **  jaguNET Access Services  **      |    it wouldn't be crunchy"
      Email: info@jaguNET.com          |            Whizzo Crunchy Frog
++    http://www.jaguNET.com/         +++      Voice/Fax: 410-931-3157       ++