Re: Fixes for 8.1 run of pgindent

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixes for 8.1 run of pgindent
Date: 2005-11-15 14:36:03
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7BD0@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
>
> > Agreed, it is not a great idea, but if we don't, then 8.1.X and CVS
> > HEAD will not match indenting, and patches generated by 8.1.X users
> > will not apply cleanly to CVS HEAD. And if we don't run it
> at all, we
> > then will have CVS HEAD with columns > 80 and incorrect
> typedef indentations.
>
> I agree with Bruce here: better to keep 8.1 and HEAD matching
> as best we can. I've already had problems with back-patching
> because the comment indentation in 8.0 and 8.1 is so
> completely different --- manually redoing a patch because
> patch can't figure it out is no fun and a likely source of
> errors. Having to do it an extra time for 8.1 vs HEAD would
> increase the pain and risk that much more.

I didn't consider the patch-conflict issue. With that in mind, yeah, it
seems reasonable to do it.

> One of the reasons I wanted Bruce to post the proposed diff
> was so that we could eyeball-verify that it's only hitting
> comments. I think it's worth a little more trouble to check
> the results given that we plan to run it against 8.1.

Sounds like a good idae.

//Magnus

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-11-15 14:37:04 Re: Running PostGre on DVD
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-15 14:27:56 Re: someone working to add merge?