On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> @@ -1184,18 +1180,19 @@ set_revprop(const char *prop_name, const
>> if (opt_state->use_pre_revprop_change_hook ||
>> opt_state->use_post_revprop_change_hook)
>> {
>> - SVN_ERR(svn_repos_fs_change_rev_prop3
>> - (repos, opt_state->start_revision.value.number,
>> - NULL, prop_name, prop_value,
>> - opt_state->use_pre_revprop_change_hook,
>> - opt_state->use_post_revprop_change_hook, NULL, NULL, pool));
>> + SVN_ERR(svn_repos_fs_change_rev_prop3(repos,
>> + opt_state->start_revision.value.number,
>> + NULL, prop_name, prop_value,
>> + opt_state->use_pre_revprop_change_hook,
>> + opt_state->use_post_revprop_change_hook, NULL,
>> + NULL, pool));
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is the indentation algorithm used in situations
> like this? I've been unable to detect consistency so far.
1) Status quo
2) Aligned with first arg
3) Indented far enough to be recognizable as a parameter list
(2) is our preferred style, and what's documented in HACKING, iirc.
(3) is more of a convenience, if the function or parameter name makes
(2) impossible or unwieldy.
-Hyrum
Received on 2010-06-17 21:09:38 CEST