Horton

Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres@piotr-stefaniak.me>
Date: 2017-05-19T20:01:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/19/17 11:22, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I certainly would rather that our version matched something that's under
>> active maintenance someplace.  But it seems like there are two good
>> arguments for having a copy in our tree:

> Is pgindent going to be indented by pgindent?

If we were going to keep it in our tree, I'd plan to add an exclusion
rule to keep pgindent from touching it, as we already have for assorted
other files that are copied from external projects.  However, it seems
like "keep it in a separate repo" is winning, so it's moot.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Manually un-break a few URLs that pgindent used to insist on splitting.

  2. Remove entab and associated detritus.

  3. Phase 3 of pgindent updates.

  4. Phase 2 of pgindent updates.

  5. Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0.

  6. Adjust pgindent script to use pg_bsd_indent 2.0.

  7. Final pgindent run with old pg_bsd_indent (version 1.3).