Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert "Initial work on formatting headers" #6115

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2024

Conversation

ytmimi
Copy link
Contributor

@ytmimi ytmimi commented Mar 13, 2024

Reverts #5847

There are still some pending discussions about how formatting should be handled in the presence of headers #5847 (comment). @calebcartwright please let us know when t-style has made a determination on this 🙏🏼.

cc: @fee1-dead

@fee1-dead
Copy link
Member

Perhaps we should make this version gated instead of just removing it, so we can keep developing it?

@calebcartwright
Copy link
Member

Perhaps we should make this version gated instead of just removing it, so we can keep developing it?

I'd considered this as well, but I'd rather not introduce churn. Instead of reverting if you'd be up for instead preserving the original header span contents (so as to not drop comments) and/or handle the non-pending case of block style comments that fit then I'd be okay with that too

please let us know when t-style has made a determination on this

for clarity, this isn't something t-style is going to specify. generally speaking dealing with these comment scenarios is something we're going to need to determine how to handle ourselves. it's just that I think we need to actually discuss and design how we want to do this as a first step

@fee1-dead
Copy link
Member

Go ahead with the revert. I will try to find time to restore it later with the functionality you described :)

@calebcartwright calebcartwright merged commit a848e28 into master Apr 7, 2024
31 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants