| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lessons from commit fest |
| Date: | 2008-04-16 22:48:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1970.1208386084@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Maybe this means that we should give pgindent a run over the back
>>> branches.
>>
>> Yea, that thought has crossed our minds, but the problem is that there
>> is little testing of back branches so it would be risky.
> That's a fair point, though I wonder how can a code indenter be so
> broken that it broke code in ways not detected by our buildfarm.
Yeah, the buildfarm has changed that equation a little.
I think that if we were going to do something like switch to GNU indent,
we'd really have to do that (re-indent the back branches) to maintain
our sanity. And again anytime we moved to a new release of indent.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-04-16 22:50:28 | Re: Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-04-16 22:38:30 | Re: Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |