On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:19:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and
> >> noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files
> >> littering the enti
On 16/08/16 16:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 08/15/2016 02:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/15/2016 10:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
We should probably specify -bext='/', which would cause the backup
files
to be deleted unless an error occurred.
Really?
On 08/15/2016 02:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/15/2016 10:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
We should probably specify -bext='/', which would cause the backup files
to be deleted unless an error occurred.
Really? That seems a bit magic, and it's certainl
Michael Paquier writes:
> The tree does not have any .bak file, and those refer to backup copies
> normally. Perhaps it would make sense to include those in root's
> .gitignore? That would save from an unfortunate manipulation of git
> add in the future.
We've generally refrained from adding thin
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and
>>> noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files
>>> littering the entire tree. T
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 08/15/2016 10:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> We should probably specify -bext='/', which would cause the backup files
>>> to be deleted unless an error occurred.
>> Really? That seems a bit magic, and it's certainly undocumented.
> We must be u
On 08/15/2016 10:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and
noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files
littering the entire tree. This seems like a prett
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and
>> noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files
>> littering the entire tree. This seems like a pretty bad idea because
>> a naive "git
On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and
noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files
littering the entire tree. This seems like a pretty bad idea because
a naive "git add ." would have committed them.
