Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Rustfmt-ing liblog v2. - #28991
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Oct 12, 2015
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nikomatsakis (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems wrong, it should be indented relative to beginning of LogDirective (above and below too).
nrc
commented
Oct 13, 2015
I'd like to see if https://github.com/nrc/rustfmt/pull/449 fixes the odd formatting in the tests. The only other thing is the comment which needs fixing up, otherwise looks good! |
c015a35 to
5943af3Comparegoyox86
commented
Oct 13, 2015
@nrc, @alexcrichton I've run latest rustfmt and semmed to fix the issues. Also manually aligned comments. |
nikomatsakis
commented
Oct 13, 2015
I'm inclined to r+, but I'll wait on what @alexcrichton thinks. |
nikomatsakis
commented
Oct 13, 2015
nrc
commented
Oct 13, 2015
LGTM @goyox86 thanks for the changes! |
goyox86
commented
Oct 13, 2015
Sweet! @nrc The CI bot will merge it. Or do I have to merge? |
alexcrichton
commented
Oct 13, 2015
bors
commented
Oct 13, 2015
📌 Commit 94946db has been approved by |
…I, r=alexcrichton Hi Rustaceans! This is the second version of running rustfmt on liblog rust-lang#28898. There are only rustfmt suggested changes. Because I think that some patterns here (that I fixed up in the prev PR need to be discussed in detail. //cc @nrc
Hi Rustaceans!
This is the second version of running rustfmt on liblog #28898. There are only rustfmt suggested changes. Because I think that some patterns here (that I fixed up in the prev PR need to be discussed in detail.
//cc @nrc