| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
| Date: | 2023-01-22 19:20:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> When reading the emails in this discussion from 2 years ago
> it seems like the respondents wouldn't mind updating the
> typedefs.list manually. And proposed approach number 3
> seemed to have support overall, i.e. fail a push to master
> when pgindent was not run on the new commit. Would
> it make sense to simply try that approach and see if
> there's any big issues with it?
I will absolutely not accept putting in something that fails pushes
on this basis. There are too many cases where pgindent purity is
not an overriding issue. I mentioned a counterexample just upthread:
even if you are as anal as you could be about indentation, you might
prefer to separate a logic-changing patch from the ensuing mechanical
reindentation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Isaac Morland | 2023-01-22 19:53:48 | Re: Remove source code display from \df+? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-01-22 19:15:49 | Re: Remove source code display from \df+? |