clang-format: New options welcome?

The blog posting at https://blog.benoitblanchon.fr/clang-format-5/
seems to suggest that new options for clang-format are welcome even if
the potential audience might be on the smaller side ("Pro-tip 2: Don't
discard Clang-format because a detail is missing").

A while ago I had submitted a patch for two new options that was
turned down; see https://reviews.llvm.org/D25171. Not having these
options means we cannot use clang-format at all for a number of
projects. I'm wondering if the policy has changed these days and such
a patch might be acceptable now if I updated and resubmitted it. Any
advice?

Thanks,

Robin

The blog posting at https://blog.benoitblanchon.fr/clang-format-5/
seems to suggest that new options for clang-format are welcome even if
the potential audience might be on the smaller side (“Pro-tip 2: Don’t
discard Clang-format because a detail is missing”).

A while ago I had submitted a patch for two new options that was
turned down; see https://reviews.llvm.org/D25171. Not having these
options means we cannot use clang-format at all for a number of
projects. I’m wondering if the policy has changed these days and such
a patch might be acceptable now if I updated and resubmitted it. Any
advice?

The policy didn’t change. It’s still a trade-off between usefulness / audience and feature creep that’s made on a case-by-case basis.