Re: .clang-format: how useful, how often used, and how well maintained?

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> >
> >> I still think that if we're going to have this functionality and
> >> expect it to be used, we need to make it the default, build
> >> appropriate tooling, and check it in CI.  If it's not
> >> fire-and-forget, people won't use it.
> >
> > There probably needs some balancing act, as I already pointed out,
> > what clang-format gives often do not make sense, and the point is that
> > they are not about styles (where we can safely say "no style is liked
> > by everybody") but about how readable the result is (which sometimes
> > is subjective but more often it is not).  Until the tool and its
> > configuration is polished enough, blindly applying the result with
> > fire-and-forget mentality will degrade the quality of our codebase.
> 
> Allow me to share an unpopular opinion. I think you either fully commit
> to a formatter, or you don't care about formatting at all. I realize
> that's probably overly strict for most people, but I've been working
> mostly in Golang for several years, and having a tool that formats code
> and it's output is unarguably the standard is a bliss.
> 
> I think the only way we can stop bikeshedding about formatting, is by
> adopting clang-format and make it's output the golden standard. We might
> not like it's output (similar to many people do not like `gofmt`s
> output), but it's a standard. If we have to wait for clang-format to
> support all the configuration options we prefer, we will be having this
> conversation over and over again over time. I don't think that's worth
> it.
> 
> Code formatting should be the job of an automated tool, not a person.
> It's annoying to have this back-and-forth in reviews because it's not
> following the standard _the Git project_ has set, while it would be a
> lot less friction to follow a standard that's set by _the formatting
> tool_.