Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > Did that in the attached.
Thanks. > I didn't convert the test though, due to the duplicating it'd create. Perhaps > we should just move it to a shell script? Or maybe it just doesn't matter > enough to bother with? We could move it to a shell script perhaps, but that seems pretty low-priority. > It doesn't build as-is with msvc, but does build with mingw. Failure: > https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6290206869946368?logs=build#L1573 Thanks, I'll take a look at these things. > To we really want to require users to install pg_bsd_indent into PATH? Seems > like we ought to have a build target to invoke pgindent with a path to > pg_bsd_indent or such? But I guess we can address that later. For the moment I was just interested in maintaining the current workflow. I know people muttered about having some sort of build target that'd indent the whole tree from scratch after building pg_bsd_indent, but it's not very clear to me how that'd work with e.g. VPATH configurations. (I think you can already tell pgindent to use a specific pg_bsd_indent, if your gripe is just about wanting to use a prebuilt copy that you don't want to keep in PATH for some reason.) > Independent of this specific patch: You seem to be generating your patch > series by invoking git show and redirecting that to a file? Yeah, it's pretty low-tech. I'm not in the habit of posting multi-patch series very often, so I haven't really bothered to use format-patch. (I gave up on "git am" long ago as being too fragile, and always use good ol' "patch" to apply patches, so I don't think about things like whether it'd automatically absorb commit messages. I pretty much never use anyone else's commit message verbatim anyway ...) regards, tom lane