> On May 17, 2019, at 12:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2019-05-17 13:47:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I dunno, how far back are you thinking? I've occasionally wished we
>>> could reindent all the back branches to match HEAD, but realistically,
>>> people carrying out-of-tree patches would scream.
>
>> I somehow thought we'd backpatched pgindent changes before, around when
>> moving to the newer version of indent. But I think we might just have
>> discussed that, and then didn't go for it...
>
> Yeah, we talked about it but never actually did it.
>
>> Not sure if a three-way merge wouldn't take care of many, but not all,
>> the out-of-tree patch concerns.
>
> I was wondering about "patch --ignore-whitespace" myself. In theory,
> to the extent that our recent rounds of pgindent fixes just change
> indentation, that would be able to cope (most of the time anyway).
> But I don't think I'd want to just assume that without testing.
>
> Anybody around here got large patches they're carrying against
> back branches, that they could try reapplying after running
> a newer version of pgindent?
I have forks of 9.1 and 9.5 that each amount to large changes
against the public sources, though I consider those forks to be
defunct. If you want me to run some particular version of pg_indent
against the public sources of 9.1 and 9.5 and then try to merge the
changed sources into my forks, I could give it a try. I'm not
sure if this is the sort of thing you have in mind....
mark
