> > > and most times, those have to be merged into the source tree due to
> > > extensive changes anyway ... maybe we should just get rid of the use of
> > > pgindent altogether? its not something that I've ever seen required on
> > > other projects I've worked on ... in general, most projects seem to
> > > require that a submit'd patch from an older release be at least tested on
> > > the newest CVS, and with nightly snapshots being created as it is, I
> > > really don't see why such a requirement is a bad thing ...
> >
> > In an ideal world, people would test on CVS but in reality, the patches
> > are usually pretty small and if they fix the problem, we apply them.
> >
> > Seems like a lot of work just to avoid pgindent.
>
> If they are small, then why is pgindent required? And if they are large,
> is it too much to ask that the person submitting tests the patch to make
> sure its even applicable in the newest snapshot?
The problem is that the small ones don't apply cleanly if they don't
match the indenting in the source.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
