Re: Fixes position of mensural c clef (issue 6503091)

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

On 2012-09-08 08:11, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > 1. reject any offers of help from contributors who do not follow the
> >     existing formatting.
> >
> > 2. educate each contributor individually, go through multiple rounds
> >     of each patch to adjust the formatting, etc.
> >
> > 3. use an automatic formatting tool.
> >
> > 4. combine 2 and 3: use an automatic formatting tool for most of the
> >     code style, but still require some additional manual formatting
> >     (and go through a few rounds of reviews if necessary).
> >
> > I favor either 3 or 4; we are not in a position to be gratuitously
> > rejecting patches, and having "finicky" manual formatting will
> > discourage some contributors.
>
> I fully agree.  Since we have no support for (3) yet, I will do a bit
> of (2), and I really hope that Phil can bear with me :-)

Is it really such a big deal if the code formatting is not perfectly 
consistent in every little detail?
In particular, I would favor option

  5. (relax 2 a bit) educate each contributor individually when giving
     feedback about the patch. Don't insist on a new patch for
     formatting alone, but tell the submitter that (s)he should (i.e.
     following the RFC terminology strongly recommended, but not
     absolutely required) fix the indentation before applying.

Cheers,
Reinhold


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://www.kainhofer.com
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com