| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, 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: | 2023-01-23 00:28:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1502504.1674433722@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I think I've proposed this before, but I still think that as long as we rely
> on pg_bsd_indent, we should have it be part of our source tree and
> automatically built. It's no wonder that barely anybody indents their
> patches, given that it requires building pg_bsd_ident in a separate repo (but
> referencing our sourc etree), putting the binary in path, etc.
Hmm ... right offhand, the only objection I can see is that the
pg_bsd_indent files use the BSD 4-clause license, which is not ours.
However, didn't UCB grant a blanket exception years ago that said
that people could treat that as the 3-clause license? If we could
get past the license question, I agree that doing what you suggest
would be superior to the current situation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-23 00:35:52 | Re: Record queryid when auto_explain.log_verbose is on |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-23 00:15:18 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |