Re: [PATCH v2 13/18] build-helper: link against libgit.a and any other required C libraries

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 4:52 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > There are more than a few developers on this project (including
> > myself) who still use 80-column editors and terminals. As a general
> > style guideline, this project does recommend wrapping code to fit
> > within 80 columns (except in cases when doing so would severely hurt
> > readability). I imagine that the same sort of guideline would be
> > appreciated in Rust code, as well, by those who still stick with 80
> > columns.
> >
> > I bring this up because, although it hasn't been such a big deal with
> > the existing C code, assuming that developers run `rustfmt` on the
> > code before sending a patch series, then this may become an issue if
> > different developers have `rustfmt` configured to enforce different
> > maximum column width, especially since `rustfmt` is likely to reformat
> > the entire file rather than just the region that has just been edited.
> > So, if this code gets checked in as-is with these very wide lines, and
> > then someone else, who has `rustfmt` configured for 80-columns edits
> > the file, then it becomes a problem.
> >
> > As such, can we also add a project-wide `rustfmt.toml` which, at
> > minimum, sets the maximum line width to 80? For instance:
> >
> >     max_width = 80
>
> I believe rustfmt and Rust generally uses a 100 column limit.
>
> Perhaps you knew this, and are really suggesting we break with Rust
> style for our own style?

> For handling personal configs, we could try to maintain a config here
> that repeats all the defaults, but that seems like more maintenance
> headache than noticing unnecessary reformatting and reminding folks we
> use the defaults (except where we have config that specifies
> otherwise). Although the docs site doesn’t suggest the configs are
> layered like for Git, so perhaps a blank config is sufficient to
> enforce « we use the defaults »?