From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
Date: | 2020-08-13 20:06:02 |
Message-ID: | 20200813200602.ifzvfhfkg5mkmth7@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-08-13 12:50:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > So, in our world, wouldn't this translate to 'make cfbot complain'?
>
> > I'm definitely a fan of the idea of having cfbot flag these and then we
> > maybe get to a point where it's not the committers dealing with fixing
> > patches that weren't pgindent'd properly, it's the actual patch
> > submitters being nagged about it...
>
> Meh. Asking all submitters to install pgindent is a bit of a burden.
+1. We could improve on that by slurping it into src/tools though. If
there were a 'make patchprep' target, it'd be a lot more realistic.
But even so, it'd robably further inrease the rate of needing to
constantly rebase lingering patches if cfbot considered indentation
issues failures. E.g. because of typedefs.list updates etc. So I'm
against that, even if we had a patchprep target that didn't need
external tools.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-08-13 20:16:28 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-13 19:50:01 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |