Ignore HTML/XML comment blocks#17
Open
philbooth wants to merge 1 commit intociaranm:masterfrom
philbooth:master
Open
Ignore HTML/XML comment blocks#17philbooth wants to merge 1 commit intociaranm:masterfrom philbooth:master
philbooth wants to merge 1 commit intociaranm:masterfrom
philbooth:master
Conversation
Owner
|
I'm still sceptical that HTML comments are commonly formatted in a way that screws up indenting. And even if they are, should they be? |
Author
|
...quite possibly not! I only made the change so I could use vim on a legacy codebase in my new job. This pull request was made more in the interests of being a responsible open-source citizen (giving back) than because I feel strongly that the change should make it back into your repo. If you're against it, that's cool with me. :) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hey Ciaran.
I made this change locally after experiencing the same problem as discussed in issue #12.
Obviously that thread is a year old and you made a strong argument against this change there, so I'm happy if you want to reject it. Just thought I should give you the opportunity to speak for yourself, rather than assuming rejection as a fait accompli! :)