From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9920 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2011 17:20:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 9906 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2011 17:20:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:19:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p93HJrLe027436 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:19:53 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p93HJqgV001343; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:19:52 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p93HJpjB029402; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:19:51 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Abhijit Halder Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Bad Indentation References: Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Abhijit Halder's message of "Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:45:39 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Abhijit" == Abhijit Halder writes: Abhijit> Since our convention is converting 8 consecutive space into a tab Abhijit> character, the above result seems to me the violation of that rule. Abhijit> Can we run some script to correct the same? I didn't see a response to this. I'm mildly against such changes. They make branch merges harder and don't notably contribute to source clarity. I won't object if someone wants to write this and some other reviewer thinks it is worth committing. Tom