On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-16 14:42:38 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:23:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Well, that's something we need to discuss. I originally argued for > > > back-patching the new rules, whatever they are (ie, run the new > > > pgindent on the back branches whenever we've agreed that the dust > > > has settled). But I'm starting to realize that that's likely to > > > be horrid for anyone who's carrying out-of-tree patches, as I know > > > a lot of packagers do for instance. We have to trade off our own > > > inconvenience in making back-patches against inconvenience to > > > people who are maintaining private patchsets. > > > > Can't they sync up to just before our pgindent commit and run pgindent > > on their own code base? > > That doesn't really help that much if you have a series of patches that > you want to keep independent, e.g. because you might want to submit to > postgres. And you'll also get a bunch of annoying to resolve merge > conflicts, even if they're easier to resolve with that methodology.
I think we have to ask how much we want to make things easier for people with modified but continually-updated Postgres trees vs. our community-tree developers. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
