From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? |
Date: | 2016-08-15 14:12:32 |
Message-ID: | 57B1CDD0.3060401@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and
> noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files
> littering the entire tree. This seems like a pretty bad idea because
> a naive "git add ." would have committed them. It's evidently because
> src/tools/pgindent/perltidyrc includes --backup-and-modify-in-place.
> Is there a good reason for that, and if so what is it?
We should probably specify -bext='/', which would cause the backup files
to be deleted unless an error occurred.
Alternatively, we could just remove the in-place parameter and write a
command that moved the new .tdy files over the original when perltidy
was finished.
>
> Also, is there a reason why the perltidy invocation command hasn't
> been packaged into a shell script, rather than expecting the committer
> to copy-and-paste a rather large string?
No idea. Sounds like a good thing to do.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-15 14:19:12 | Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? |
Previous Message | Shay Rojansky | 2016-08-15 13:57:47 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |