Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

suggestion for issue template #757

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

smoothdeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

to split code formatting / style guide with other meta issues related to processing RFCs or non specific issues.

Mostly based on reflection that came after engaging about formatting and style guide community process.

Probably needs more efforts and consensus, but maybe it is good enough new default rather than what we have currently?

cc: @vzarytovskii, @nojaf, @dsyme, @KathleenDollard

Copy link
Member

@abelbraaksma abelbraaksma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this! Let's get this in. Just a few nits, but I don't really have a strong opinion about the text r.n.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this empty file needed?

Copy link
Contributor

@nojaf nojaf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have reservations.

about: Discuss editor / tooling formatting concerns and code style guidelines
title: ''
labels: [style-guide, under-discussion]
assignees: '@nojaf,@KathleenDollard,@dsyme'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Keep my name out of this, please.

* [ ] If this is code formatter discussion, please suggest a detailed list of settings names and their default values, with their behaviour
* [ ] the choice for tooling support should be based on ease of implementation in code formatter
* [ ] the choice for tooling output should be based on
* [ ] conserving original formatting but for specific predicate that makes code significantly less maintainable
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sigh, this is again a very on the nose commentary of Gauthier.

Fantomas today does not preserve any of the existing code style. This won't change and I don't want this is in an issue template that suggests otherwise.

* [ ] There are examples of codeformatters settings in other languages / tooling available (add items nested under this list with one link per line), add screenshots to the description
* [ ] There are examples of codeformatters implementation available (add items nested under this list with one link per line)

[^1] this is generally evaluated by the person implementing and the entity potentially sponsoring the work
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Once more, we Fantomas maintainers strongly object to additional settings! Merely proposing a PR doesn't grant you authority here. Modifying settings in Fantomas should only be considered as a final option, subject to approval by the maintainers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants