Re: [PATCH 2/6] ci: check formatting of our Rust code

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 8, 2025, 15:34 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqms61h0g1.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <aOXsjnWBOt0qFGwc@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> ... but I also think we should take this
>> opportunity to choose the Rust defaults for Rust.  C, Perl, and text
>> formats like AsciiDoc do not have rigid defaults about indentation
>> style, tabs vs. spaces, and line length; Rust does.  We wouldn't use
>> tabs in Rust (the default is four spaces) because we use it everywhere
>> else, so I think we should take the opportunity to use the Rust defaults
>> here as well.
>
> I am also slightly leaning into the direction of sticking with Rust's
> default of 100 characters. It's not substantially more than 80, should
> be reasonable to accommodate for in most modern setups, and sticks with
> what the remainder of the ecosystem is doing.
>
> So for now I'll leave it at 80 characters. But I don't feel strongly
> about this, so if there is a majority in favor of 80 characters I'm
> happy to adjust.

So the question is if we want consistency across files regardless of what language they are written in (i.e. 80-columns everywhere) or we treat our existing rules a "fallback rules" we have adopted while dealing with languages without their own strict rules, and use the default for a language with its own rule (i.e. whatever rustfmt wants is used for Rust, our own rules still apply to everything else)?

I actually am fine with the latter myself.

If people strongly prefer, I also can be talked into adopting slightly wider limit for our fallback rules for everything else, but that is probably a separate discussion. It is a bit unfriendly move against folks with aging eyeballs like myself, though.

Thanks.