Re: [PATCH] t9001: fix/unify indentation regarding pipes somewhat

[Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:09:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes:
>
>>>but more like
>>>
>>>	A |
>>>	B |
>>>	C
>>>
>> i'd argue that this should be written as
>>
>> 	A |
>> 		B |
>> 		C
>>
>> like other continued lines (no trailing backslashes are needed here,
>> but it would be ok to add them, and there is in fact a commit that
>> does just that in other places, and one might do the same here in a
>> followup).
>
>You are entitled to your own opinion, and you are welcome to stick
>to it in projects you run.  But please refrain from wasting time of
>this project on something that is subjective preference and has no
>absolute yardstick to tell which is _right_ or _wrong_.
>
i think it's a rather uncontroversial statement that the whitespace 
should visualize the code structure to the greatest degree possible 
(which of course doesn't imply blindly maximizing indentation, as there 
are multiple considerations). so while the details can be bike-shedded 
to death, that doesn't mean that there isn't a trend.

i can totally see why one wouldn't indent the top-level `&&` chains in 
the test cases (they are really kinda a local `set -e`, and with bash 
one could probably actually use that with an ERR trap), but generally 
not indenting continuations (also of compound statements) is confusing 
(and doing it incorrectly even more so, as you agree).

>Difference
>between the above two falls into "once it is written in one way, it
>is not worth the patch noise to turn it into the other way",
>
that i'll happily agree with in this case.

regards