Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Only if they aren't applied by then. One reason that we normally only
>> run pgindent at the end of the devel cycle is that that's when
>> (presumably) the smallest amount of patches remain outstanding.
> OK, I get it. Thanks for bearing with me. The theory that the
> smallest amount of patches remain outstanding at that point is
> probably only true if the pgindent run is done relatively soon after
> the last CommitFest. In the 8.4 cycle, the pgindent run was done
> something like 7 months after the start of the last CommitFest, by
> which time a fair number of patches had accumulated.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Maybe we should institute a new policy that
pgindent should happen immediately after close of the last commitfest
in a cycle, instead of delaying until almost release time.
A more aggressive approach would be to run pgindent immediately after
the close of *each* commitfest, but that would tend to break patches
that had gotten punted to the next fest.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2009-08-11 15:58:00|
|Subject: Re: "Hot standby"?|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2009-08-11 15:30:01|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby and synchronous replication status|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-08-11 16:43:09|
|Subject: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-08-11 12:02:58|
|Subject: pgsql: Remove tab in SGML.|