> On Nov 28, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think that'd be taking it too far, especially given that the dependency
>>> on a typedefs list means that the git hook might have a different idea
>>> of what's correctly indented than the committer does. It'd be very hard
>>> to debug such discrepancies and figure out what would satisfy the hook.
>
>> It sounds like it just requires that the committer also commit any changes
>> to the typedefs list, such that the indenter run by the git hook can use the
>> same list the committer is using. For many commits, the typedefs list won't
>> change, and the hook would just use the most recent one from the repository.
>
>> Barring any objections, I'll see if I can make that work on my local git repo
>> and post a patch if so.
>
> The other problem that would have to be considered is cross-branch
> variation in the indent rules. We've generally been in the habit of
> back-patching HEAD diffs without worrying about whether they meet
> back-branch rules; certainly nobody maintains typedefs.list in the
> back branches. Maybe the most expedient answer for that is to only
> enforce indentation in HEAD.
>
> I'm still not really on board with this though. I can definitely
> see the day coming when it would block a security patch and somebody
> would be scrambling desperately to fix their indentation under time
> pressure, even though perhaps the patch had been fine when created.
Ok, I'll consider the idea dead. I don't see any solution to that.
mark
