Re: pgindent run?
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-03-22T05:10:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > 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? The problem is that the small ones don't apply cleanly if they don't match the indenting in the source. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026