On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > No, not at all, because you're ignoring the common case of a series of > dependent patches that are submitted in advance of the first one having > been committed.
Uh, true. > To get to the point where we could do things that way, it would have > to be the case that every developer could run pgindent locally and get > the same results that the committer would get. Maybe we'll get there > someday, and we should certainly try. But we're not nearly close enough > to be considering changing policy on that basis. Fwiw I tried getting Gnu indent to work. I'm having a devil of a time figuring out how to get even remotely similar output. I can't even get -ncsb to work which means it puts *every* one-line comment into a block with the /* and */ delimiters on a line by themselves. And it does line-wrapping differently such that any lines longer than the limit are split at the *first* convenient place rather than the last which produces some, imho, strange looking lines. And it doesn't take a file for the list of typedefs. You have to provide each one as an argment on the command-line. I hacked the source to add the typedefs to the gperf hash it uses but if we have to patch it it rather defeats the point of even pondering switching. Afaict it hasn't seen development since 2008 so I don't get the impression it's any more of a live project than the NetBSD source. All in all even if they've fixed the things it used to mangle I don't see much point in switching from one moribund project we have to patch to another moribund project we have to patch, especially as it will mean patches won't backpatch as easily since the output will be quite different. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
