| 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 23:54:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznWXrS9MZX7jm+RJmx1chpWi4e=+p8ZKrfEBzjBLELTnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 4:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Good question. We don't have a standard about that (whether to
> do those in separate or the same commits), but we could establish one
> if it seems helpful.
I don't think that it matters too much, but it will necessitate
updating the file multiple times. It might become natural to just do
everything together in a way that it wasn't before.
The really big wins come from excluding the enormous pgindent run
commits, especially for the few historic pgindent runs where the rules
changed -- there are no more than a handful of those. They tend to
generate an enormous amount of churn that touches almost everything.
So it probably isn't necessary to worry about smaller things.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2021-03-18 23:55:52 | Re: GROUP BY DISTINCT |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-03-18 23:52:17 | Re: GROUP BY DISTINCT |