| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> |
| Subject: | Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |
| Date: | 2017-06-16 18:42:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20170616184238.GA5081@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:23:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, that's something we need to discuss. I originally argued for
> back-patching the new rules, whatever they are (ie, run the new
> pgindent on the back branches whenever we've agreed that the dust
> has settled). But I'm starting to realize that that's likely to
> be horrid for anyone who's carrying out-of-tree patches, as I know
> a lot of packagers do for instance. We have to trade off our own
> inconvenience in making back-patches against inconvenience to
> people who are maintaining private patchsets.
Can't they sync up to just before our pgindent commit and run pgindent
on their own code base?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-16 18:54:06 | Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |
| Previous Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2017-06-16 18:30:29 | Re: GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling |