| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent run? |
| Date: | 2001-03-22 05:08:48 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0103220108130.2854-100000@mobile.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > and most times, those have to be merged into the source tree due to
> > extensive changes anyway ... maybe we should just get rid of the use of
> > pgindent altogether? its not something that I've ever seen required on
> > other projects I've worked on ... in general, most projects seem to
> > require that a submit'd patch from an older release be at least tested on
> > the newest CVS, and with nightly snapshots being created as it is, I
> > really don't see why such a requirement is a bad thing ...
>
> In an ideal world, people would test on CVS but in reality, the patches
> are usually pretty small and if they fix the problem, we apply them.
>
> Seems like a lot of work just to avoid pgindent.
If they are small, then why is pgindent required? And if they are large,
is it too much to ask that the person submitting tests the patch to make
sure its even applicable in the newest snapshot?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-22 05:10:06 | Re: pgindent run? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-22 05:08:17 | Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-22 05:10:06 | Re: pgindent run? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-22 04:59:24 | Re: pgindent run? |