Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-06-16 14:42:38 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:23:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Well, that's something we need to discuss.  I originally argued for
> > > back-patching the new rules, whatever they are (ie, run the new
> > > pgindent on the back branches whenever we've agreed that the dust
> > > has settled).  But I'm starting to realize that that's likely to
> > > be horrid for anyone who's carrying out-of-tree patches, as I know
> > > a lot of packagers do for instance.  We have to trade off our own
> > > inconvenience in making back-patches against inconvenience to
> > > people who are maintaining private patchsets.
> > 
> > Can't they sync up to just before our pgindent commit and run pgindent
> > on their own code base?
> 
> That doesn't really help that much if you have a series of patches that
> you want to keep independent, e.g. because you might want to submit to
> postgres.  And you'll also get a bunch of annoying to resolve merge
> conflicts, even if they're easier to resolve with that methodology.

I think we have to ask how much we want to make things easier for people
with modified but continually-updated Postgres trees vs. our
community-tree developers.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +