untabify Lisp sources (was Re: closing all inactive server connections)

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>]

Hi Lars, I wish you to respond.

>>>>> Ted Zlatanov wrote:

TZ> Unfortunately there were tabs in the gnus-srvr.el file (aren't we
TZ> supposed to use untabify?) so the patch comes out too long.

KY> I cannot understand what you want to do.  gnus-srvr.el in the CVS
KY> trunk uses tabs for the indentations that require eight or more
KY> characters width (except for only one line).  The reason the patch
KY> is big should be that you, some program or other untabified them.
KY> Do you think that it should be applied to all the Gnus sources?
KY> I don't agree.  IMO, whoever changes the Gnus sources should use
KY> the default value for the `indent-tabs-mode' variable.

> I was told by Lars a while ago to use untabify on Gnus commits, so I do
> as a general rule.  That's what I mean by my question "aren't we
> supposed to use untabify?"

Oops.  I might have overlooked it in this list.  But I don't see
an advantage of untabifying the indentations.  What is the reason
(if it exists) to force all the Gnus developers to alter the default
value of `indent-tabs-mode' or to use a hook that runs when CVS
committing?

> I didn't know the convention had changed, that's all.  I'm happy to
> stick with whatever is the current convention.  Let me know if you want
> me to commit the change, or if you'll commit your version instead.

I can agree with the new convention if there is a good reason.
But even if the convention changes (or had changed?), I think
that we should separately do untabifying of the Lisp sources and
installing of changes.

Regards,