[Bioperl-l] SVN and ...Re: Perltidy

[Sendu Bala]

Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Jason Stajich wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Chris Fields wrote:
>>
>>> To chip in on this, I only use perltidy when I need to clean bioperl
>>> code up for debugging (particularly if blocks are hard to see) and
>>> just use the defaults.  I agree it would be nice to have everything
>>> tidied up but it'll definitely need to be a consensus config file.
>>>
>> Can we do any sort of massive conversion at some logical timepoint.
>> Probably after a branch release or something?  Because it basically
>> means we're going to have differences on nearly every line which is
>> going to make diff-ing difficult when debugging old/new versions.
>> Maybe it is not a problem because we aren't introducing and new bugs!

Sorry, can you clarify the problem you envisage? And why would making a 
branch release help?


> I agree; if we intend on doing this it should be all at once, maybe  
> on a branch dedicated to ensure that code changes don't tank tests  
> (they shouldn't but one never knows).  We would then need a script up- 
> and-running that tidies everything up prior to commits (though what  
> happens if perltidy tanks?...).
> 
> Sendu, up for it?

If its going to be difficult and a hassle, for such an unnecessary thing 
I'm not sure its worth it. There are more pressing things to be done for 
Bioperl.

If I can just run perltidy on the entire package and commit, I'd do it. 
If that's not appropriate, I won't.


>>> About svn
[snip]
> Stepped into that one, didn't I!  I'll look into how much effort is  
> involved and try getting something going in the next month or two,  
> maybe sooner if time permits.  I'm lacking on SVN-foo as well but it  
> might be worth looking into.

I'd put this in the unnecessary-but-nice category as well. If it will be 
as easy as my ->new change, go ahead. If not, there are more pressing 
matters (POD fixing, test script updating and finishing...).