Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>> There was talk last time of pgindent-ing head and all back branches,
>> because a patch applied to head and back branches was historically only
>> pgindented in head, meaning that any future patches in that area could
>> not be easily backpatched.
>>
>> Do we want to do this?
> I am personally not excited about that. I would rather leave the
> back-branches alone.
It would be awfully nice though if we didn't have to deal with random
cross-branch indenting differences. I've lost, maybe not years off my
life, but certainly weeks of not-very-pleasant make-work because of that.
I'm surprised you've not had the same experience.
If people were good about pgindenting patches meant to be back-patched
*before* they committed, it would not be such an issue, but they're not
very good about that.
Would it alleviate your concern any if we eased into this, like say only
apply the back-branch pgindent run to 9.5 and later branches? Then at
least I could foresee the end of that particular annoyance.
(BTW, one practical issue is where would we get typedef lists relevant
to the back branches. I'm not sure if the buildfarm infrastructure is
capable of collecting branch-specific data, or if we'd need to rather
than just using a union of all branches' typedefs.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
