Re: [PATCHES] code cleanup for tz
Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think mostly what you are doing here is causing code drift from the > >> upstream "zic" code. I don't think that's a very good idea, since we > >> do need to be able to track and apply bug fixes from them from time > >> to time ... > > > Why run pgindent on the timezone code, then? That seems guaranteed to > > cause a lot more merge headaches... > > Well, it's certainly hopeless to expect "patch" to fix it :-(. But the > further the code drifts the harder it gets to compare manually. > > This isn't an academic concern; I went through it once already, and I > expect we'll want to do it again every release cycle when we sync the > zic database with upstream. I think the idea is that we will pgindent the new release of the timezone code and then diff that against our current CVS. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] code cleanup for tz
Tom Lane wrote: Well, it's certainly hopeless to expect "patch" to fix it :-(. But the further the code drifts the harder it gets to compare manually. Sure, but I don't see how removing a few "register" qualifiers and so forth is going to make the slightest difference to a manual comparison. If the code was intentionally being kept as close to upstream as possible, I wouldn't have made the changes in the first place -- but since there is little prospect of doing a machine-assisted merge after pgindent, I don't think this patch makes things appreciably worse. -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] code cleanup for tz
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I think mostly what you are doing here is causing code drift from the >> upstream "zic" code. I don't think that's a very good idea, since we >> do need to be able to track and apply bug fixes from them from time >> to time ... > Why run pgindent on the timezone code, then? That seems guaranteed to > cause a lot more merge headaches... Well, it's certainly hopeless to expect "patch" to fix it :-(. But the further the code drifts the harder it gets to compare manually. This isn't an academic concern; I went through it once already, and I expect we'll want to do it again every release cycle when we sync the zic database with upstream. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] code cleanup for tz
Tom Lane wrote: I think mostly what you are doing here is causing code drift from the upstream "zic" code. I don't think that's a very good idea, since we do need to be able to track and apply bug fixes from them from time to time ... Why run pgindent on the timezone code, then? That seems guaranteed to cause a lot more merge headaches... -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PATCHES] code cleanup for tz
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch makes various cosmetic improvements to the timezone code: > remove the use of the register qualifier, make some function declaration > syntax a bit more consistent, etc. I think mostly what you are doing here is causing code drift from the upstream "zic" code. I don't think that's a very good idea, since we do need to be able to track and apply bug fixes from them from time to time ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq