On 7/3/23 04:18, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 2023-07-02 Su 20:30, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: >>> koel has failed its indent step after these commits. I am unsure >>> whether you need to fix this as it does not seem that we have a >>> consensus to automate that, just FYI. >> Well, *somebody* has to fix it, otherwise why did we set up the animal? >> But the impression I had was that a majority of committers want to >> start keeping the tree pgindent-clean. >> >> > > > I think we need to spell out expectations more clearly. Here's what I > said to Tomas in a private message: > > I think the expectation is that, while there might be cases where > you want to make some commits and then indent afterwards, so the > changes are clear, for most cases you should try to commit > pre-indented patches. > > But that's just my opinion. I think we need to spell it out more formally. >
I've pushed a fix for the indentation issues caused by my commits (this one and the commit touching trigger.c). But I agree with Andrew it'd be good to spell out the expectations - perhaps it's spelled out somewhere deep in the pgindent, not sure. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
