On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:10:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:53:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (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.
>
> Not sure why you think it's unlikely; a back-patched commit could easily
> add one. And if it did, we'd want pgindent to treat it the same as in
> HEAD, else the whole point of this is gone.
Oh, good point.
> (Come to think of it, that argument means we *do* want to use the same
> typedef list in every branch, if we're to do this at all.)
I am feeling either the head typedefs or the per-branch typedefs are
close enough that either would be fine. If we go with the head
typedefs, there will be some churn in the code layout, though, unrelated
to the patches applied.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
