On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:53:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.
I couldn't figure out why we were getting that code drift, but now that
Tom has identified why it happens, it seems good that we fix it.
> 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.)
Uh, I just happen to commit the typedef list file used for the pgindent
run in src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list, per branch, so we would just
use the same file. If typedefs were added in a backbranch (unlikely),
we probably wouldn't want to use them anyway.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
