Re: pgindent-polluted commits - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pgindent-polluted commits
Date
Msg-id 1888.1452705191@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgindent-polluted commits  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: pgindent-polluted commits  (Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>)
Re: pgindent-polluted commits  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: pgindent-polluted commits  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: pgindent-polluted commits  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines
>> the patch would not otherwise change.

> Could we review again why this matters?

Basically this is trading off convenience of the committer (all of the
alternatives Noah mentions are somewhat annoying) versus the convenience
of post-commit reviewers.  I'm not sure that his recommendation is the
best trade-off, nor that the situation is precisely comparable to
pre-commit review.  There definitely will be pre-commit review, there
may or may not be any post-commit review.

I'm willing to go with the "separate commit to reindent individual files"
approach if there's a consensus that that makes for a cleaner git history.
But I'm not 100% convinced it matters.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: pgindent-polluted commits
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport