From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Date: | 2015-05-18 22:34:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYfnvZ8X6s8oyL2BcMO6xLUSXRU1srH3dok7Q4nBbcUVg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:05:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> >> With feature freeze behind us, I'd like to propose that now is a good
>> >> time for a pgindent run.
>>
>> > +1, except I suggest we at least delay it until we have wrapped the new
>> > minor releases, to make sure we don't conflict with any backpatching there.
>>
>> Sure, a couple of days won't make much difference.
>
> There was talk last time of pgindent-ing head and all back branches,
> because a patch applied to head and back branches was historically only
> pgindented in head, meaning that any future patches in that area could
> not be easily backpatched.
>
> Do we want to do this?
I am personally not excited about that. I would rather leave the
back-branches alone.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-05-18 22:48:24 | Re: 9.5 open items |
Previous Message | Bruno Harbulot | 2015-05-18 22:31:17 | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |