Re: Cleaning up webrtc spec

On 09/23/2015 03:18 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
>> On 09/23/2015 02:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>> I do not think this is a good idea. It means when you a single word changes in paragraph, often the whole paragraph changes. This means when you go to look at the PR, you have to manually try and figure out what changed in the paragraph. If a person adds a new outer section, the indentation of the every inner section changes and breaks ever existing PR. It also means when the WG is trying to track changes it is much harder for them.
>> At the moment I can't remember a single case where the WG (or any member
>> thereof) has said that they cared what the history of a particular line was.
> I did not say that and you did not read what I wrote. Please do. 

OK, I have read it again. My response was to the part "It also means
when the WG is trying to track changes it is much harder to them" - if
they never tried, it should be an indication that it's not important to
us whether it's easy or hard.

>> The way Martin's suggesting (if I understand it rightly), people would
>> be encouraged to commit the whitespace changes as an extra commit in the
>> PR - so if one wishes to dig into history, one can.
> No - that is not his proposal. 

My understanding of his proposal is that there would be a presubmit that
checks for consistency with the result of running tidy, and fails if
there is a difference (probably with an error message of "please run tidy").

My understanding of people's response is that they would be likely to
run tidy, commit, and push the resulting commit onto their PR
(especially if we told them that was a Good Thing).

What is your understanding of his proposal?

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 13:23:58 UTC