Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, 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>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
Date: 2023-10-17 15:42:27
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYxG2Y56Wzg36otfK-FDEGeNkSwtLQU6pbP3-ix6FcZJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:23 AM Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> To clarify, I did not intend to imply people that commit unindented
> code are lazy. It's expected that humans forget to run pgindent before
> committing from time to time (I do too). That's why I proposed a
> server side git hook to reject badly indented commits very early in
> this thread. But some others said that buildfarm animals were the way
> to go for Postgres development flow. And since I'm not a committer I
> left it at that. I was already happy enough that there was consensus
> on indenting continuously, so that the semi-regular rebases for the
> few open CF entries that I have are a lot less annoying.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't really think you were trying to be
accusatory, but I didn't really understand what else to think either,
so this is helpful context.

> But based on the current feedback I think we should seriously consider
> a server-side "update" git hook again. People are obviously not
> perfect machines. And for whatever reason not everyone installs the
> pre-commit hook from the wiki. So the koel keeps complaining. A
> server-side hook would solve all of this IMHO.

One potential problem with a server-side hook is that if you back-port
a commit to older branches and then push the commits all together
(which is my workflow) then you might get failure to push on some
branches but not others. I don't know if there's any way to avoid
that, but it seems not great. You could think of enforcing the policy
only on master to try to avoid this, but that still leaves a risk that
you manage to push to all the back-branches and not to master.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-10-17 15:43:18 Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text
Previous Message Isaac Morland 2023-10-17 15:38:07 Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text