| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
| Date: | 2020-08-13 16:50:16 |
| Message-ID: | 469403.1597337416@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Moreover, sometimes it's better to provide a patch that deliberately
hasn't reindented existing code, for ease of review (say, when you're
adding if() { ... } around some big hunk of code). I think getting
committers to do this as part of commit is a better workflow.
(Admittedly, since I've been doing that for a long time, I don't
find it to be a burden. I suppose some committers do.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-08-13 16:58:50 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-13 16:45:08 | Re: Parallel query hangs after a smart shutdown is issued |