Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] ci/style-check: add `RemoveBracesLLVM` to '.clang-format'

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ah right. Let me summarise:
>> - Method 1: Inject the extra config to '.clang-format' in the CI's job.
>> This is the current method.
>> - Method 2: Create '.clang-format-ci' to use in the CI
>>   - Method 2.a: The new file contains '.clang-format' + CI specific
>>   rules.
>>   - Method 2.b: The new file simply contains the new rules and we inject
>>   the rest in the CI's job.
>>
>> I'd say methods '1' and '2.b' are similar, since they modify the tree on
>> the CI. So no real benefit of one over the other, no?
>
> Sorry, but I am not sure what you are trying to say, especially with
> 2.a and 2.b, your assumption on "the new file".  Is it tracked?
>

> Try running "git describe --dirty" and see if the command can tell
> the difference.  If you smudge .clang-format, which is a tracked
> file, it will be noticed.
>
> But you can use a temporary file and use --style=file:/... to point
> at it.  The temporary file can be an untracked and ignored file,
> just like any *.o files we would create during a build.  Then "git
> describe --dirty" would not complain that you are making the working
> tree dirty.
>
> The temporary file does not even have to be inside our working tree.

> If we know we can write into /tmp/clang-format-rules file, then the
> CI script can do something like
>
> 	{
> 		cat .clang-format
> 		echo echo "RemoveBracesLLVM: true"
> 	} >/tmp/clang-format-rules
> 	git clang-format --style=file:/tmp/clang-format-rules \
> 		 --diff --extensions c,h "$baseCommit"
>
> right?  Then "git status" would even say "there is no untracked
> cruft" (although I do not know we *need* to keep the working tree
> that clean, without untracked cruft).