Re: Maintaining a list of pgindent commits for "git blame" to ignore

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Maintaining a list of pgindent commits for "git blame" to ignore
Date: 2021-03-18 23:32:20
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkNpDGK7LePYvXv4bCcb0BtnKF9x2+q3qsC=LOZc9HNDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 4:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> b5d69b7c22ee4c44b8bb99cfa0466ffaf3b5fab9 # Sun Jun 7 16:57:08 2020 -0400
> # pgindent run prior to branching v13.
>
> which is easy to make from "git log" or "git show" output. (Because
> of the precedent of those tools, I'd rather write the commit hash
> before the rest of the entry.)

WFM.

What about reformat-dat-files and perltidy runs? It seems that you
have sometimes used all three reformatting tools to produce one commit
-- but not always. ISTM that I should get any of those that I missed.
And that the pgindent README (which already mentions these other
tools) ought to be updated to be explicit about the policy applying
equally to commits that apply any of the two other tools in bulk.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ajin Cherian 2021-03-18 23:33:20 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2021-03-18 23:31:01 Re: Maintaining a list of pgindent commits for "git blame" to ignore