On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:23 AM Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> To clarify, I did not intend to imply people that commit unindented
> code are lazy. It's expected that humans forget to run pgindent before
> committing from time to time (I do too). That's why I proposed a
> server side git hook to reject badly indented commits very early in
> this thread. But some others said that buildfarm animals were the way
> to go for Postgres development flow. And since I'm not a committer I
> left it at that. I was already happy enough that there was consensus
> on indenting continuously, so that the semi-regular rebases for the
> few open CF entries that I have are a lot less annoying.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't really think you were trying to be
accusatory, but I didn't really understand what else to think either,
so this is helpful context.
> But based on the current feedback I think we should seriously consider
> a server-side "update" git hook again. People are obviously not
> perfect machines. And for whatever reason not everyone installs the
> pre-commit hook from the wiki. So the koel keeps complaining. A
> server-side hook would solve all of this IMHO.
One potential problem with a server-side hook is that if you back-port
a commit to older branches and then push the commits all together
(which is my workflow) then you might get failure to push on some
branches but not others. I don't know if there's any way to avoid
that, but it seems not great. You could think of enforcing the policy
only on master to try to avoid this, but that still leaves a risk that
you manage to push to all the back-branches and not to master.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
