Re: pgindent-polluted commits

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgindent-polluted commits
Date: 2016-01-13 17:13:11
Message-ID: 1888.1452705191@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines
>> the patch would not otherwise change.

> Could we review again why this matters?

Basically this is trading off convenience of the committer (all of the
alternatives Noah mentions are somewhat annoying) versus the convenience
of post-commit reviewers. I'm not sure that his recommendation is the
best trade-off, nor that the situation is precisely comparable to
pre-commit review. There definitely will be pre-commit review, there
may or may not be any post-commit review.

I'm willing to go with the "separate commit to reindent individual files"
approach if there's a consensus that that makes for a cleaner git history.
But I'm not 100% convinced it matters.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2016-01-13 18:40:14 Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2016-01-13 16:54:00 Re: pgindent-polluted commits