From: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>,
	David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: globally replace non-branching "(if COND (progn
	..." with "(when ..."
In-Reply-To: <874nva7jkk.fsf@praet.org>
References: <87k44uprvy.fsf@praet.org>
	<1326532638-22068-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<87y5ssxam7.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<CAB+hUn-GmONr24nfxBkt59TzHHyZiD1wioYXoPh9wy-rZR-m2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<87ty3fycje.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<cunliopilwj.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
	<874nva7jkk.fsf@praet.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+139~gd9b7cab (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:21:33 +0400
Message-ID: <87bopimy6q.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:46:19 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:23:40 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:14:45 -0400, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:55:22 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 28, 2012 2:41 PM, "David Bremner" <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Sometimes someone (Dmitry?) sent patches that separated a small functional
> > > > change, and the big non-functional indentation change it caused,
> > > > separately. Would you prefer (or tolerate ;) that style?
> > > 
> > > Hmm, that might be nicer, I'm not 100% sure.
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't say it's mandatory for a patch like this (and I'd say other
> > > peoples views on what's easy to review are at least as important as mine
> > > here).
> > 
> > Each patch should be valid in the repository without any following
> > patches (preceding are obviously okay). Incorrect indentation would
> > disqualify a patch from being 'valid', so it shouldn't be accepted.
> 
> +1.
> 
> Indentation corrections should always be part of the same patch as
> the change(s) that invalidated the indentation in the first place.
> 
> Spotting the *actual* (non-indentation) changes is a non-issue
> when using `diff-refine-hunk' (or a wrapper thereof [1]).
> 

Must... resist... getting... into... this...