| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent-polluted commits |
| Date: | 2016-01-13 17:13:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1888.1452705191@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines
>> the patch would not otherwise change.
> Could we review again why this matters?
Basically this is trading off convenience of the committer (all of the
alternatives Noah mentions are somewhat annoying) versus the convenience
of post-commit reviewers. I'm not sure that his recommendation is the
best trade-off, nor that the situation is precisely comparable to
pre-commit review. There definitely will be pre-commit review, there
may or may not be any post-commit review.
I'm willing to go with the "separate commit to reindent individual files"
approach if there's a consensus that that makes for a cleaner git history.
But I'm not 100% convinced it matters.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-01-13 18:40:14 | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-01-13 16:54:00 | Re: pgindent-polluted commits |