Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner

> I think that would be undesirable, because then reindentation noise
> in completely-unrelated files would get baked into feature commits,
> complicating review and messing up "git blame" history.

With a rebase hook similar to the the pre-commit hook that I shared
upthread, your files will be changed accordingly, but you don't need
to commit those changes in the same commit as the one that you're
rebasing. You could append another commit after it. Another option
would be to move the typedefs.list change to a separate commit
together with all project wide indentation changes.

> The real bottom line here is that AFAICT, there are fewer committers
> who care about indent cleanliness than committers who do not, so
> I do not think that the former group get to impose strict rules
> on the latter, much as I might wish otherwise.

Is this actually the case? I haven't seen anyone in this thread say
they don't care. From my perspective it seems like the unclean
indents simply come from forgetting to run pgindent once in
a while. And those few forgetful moments add up over a year.
of commits. That's why to me tooling seems the answer here.
If the tooling makes it easy not to forget then the problem
goes away.

> FWIW, Andrew's recent --show-diff feature for pgindent has
> already improved my workflow for that. I can do
> "pgindent --show-diff >fixindent.patch", manually remove any hunks
> in fixindent.patch that don't pertain to the code I'm working on,
> and apply what remains to fix up my new code. (I had been doing
> something basically like this, but with more file-copying steps
> to undo pgindent's edit-in-place behavior.)

Yeah, I have a similar workflow with the pre-commit hook that
I shared. By using "git checkout -p" I can remove hunks that
don't pertain to my code. Still it would be really nice not
to have to go through that effort (which is significant for the
libpq code that I've been workin on, since there's ~50
incorrectly indented hunks).

> Here's another improvement I think will be useful when the new gadgets
> are used in a git hook: first, look for the excludes file under the
> current directory if we aren't setting $code_base (e.g if we have files
> given on the command line), and second apply the exclude patterns to the
> command line files as well as to files found using File::Find.

Change looks good to me.