Re: [PATCH 2/6] ci: check formatting of our Rust code

["SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 08:34:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> >> ... but I also think we should take this
> >> opportunity to choose the Rust defaults for Rust.  C, Perl, and text
> >> formats like AsciiDoc do not have rigid defaults about indentation
> >> style, tabs vs. spaces, and line length; Rust does.  We wouldn't use
> >> tabs in Rust (the default is four spaces) because we use it everywhere
> >> else, so I think we should take the opportunity to use the Rust defaults
> >> here as well.
> >
> > I am also slightly leaning into the direction of sticking with Rust's
> > default of 100 characters. It's not substantially more than 80, should
> > be reasonable to accommodate for in most modern setups, and sticks with
> > what the remainder of the ecosystem is doing.
> >
> > So for now I'll leave it at 80 characters. But I don't feel strongly
> > about this, so if there is a majority in favor of 80 characters I'm
> > happy to adjust.
> 
> So the question is if we want consistency across files regardless of
> what language they are written in (i.e. 80-columns everywhere) or we
> treat our existing rules a "fallback rules" we have adopted while
> dealing with languages without their own strict rules, and use the
> default for a language with its own rule (i.e. whatever rustfmt
> wants is used for Rust, our own rules still apply to everything
> else)?

Consistency across files regardless of language was great, because I,
for one, prefer to use the same editor for all files regardless of
language.

I find 100 columns much worse than 80, because on my laptop I can put
three 80 columns editors next to each other (and still have a bit of
room to spare), but with 100 columns there is only room for two.

> I actually am fine with the latter myself.
> 
> If people strongly prefer, I also can be talked into adopting
> slightly wider limit for our fallback rules for everything else, but
> that is probably a separate discussion.  It is a bit unfriendly move
> against folks with aging eyeballs like myself, though.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>