From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 01:57:44 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] status: collect per-file data for --porcelain=v2 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20160807222903.GA462@starla> Eric Wong writes: >> > Not a big deal (no need to resend for this one alone), but let's >> > make the above properly formatted, i.e. >> > >> > if (ce_stage(ce)) { >> > ... >> > } else { >> > ... >> > } >> >> Do I understand correctly that your objections is against having the curly >> brace before the "else" on its own line? >> >> If so, when did our coding style change? I vividly remember that we >> strongly favored putting the "else" on a new line after a closing brace, >> to make diffs nicer in case the braces were removed or added. > > AFAIK, Linux kernel CodingStyle has always been what Junio > suggested (just w/o the trailing spaces :), > and we inherit from that. What Eric said. While I admit that I sometimes break line between "}" and "else {" by inertia when I am being careless and get caught by checkpatch.pl myself, I do not recall trying to justify it; you probably may remember somebody else saying that, but I don't recall anybody making that argument on the list, and more importantly I don't recall us making that our style based on that argument. The only two and half kinds of warnings we knowingly ignore from scripts/checkpatch.pl in the Linux kernel source tree are: * "Avoid typedefs." We do avoid making graduitous use of typedef to hide a structure behind a type and pretty much limit ourselves to use it for (callback) function types, though. * "We've never heard of Helped-by/Mentored-by footers"; well, kernel folks may not, but we have ;-) * "No spaces for bitfield width". This may not be justifyable, but the majority of our bitfield widths are defined in the way not blessed by checkpatch.pl checker.