Magnus Hagander wrote: > 2010/2/18 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running >> pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the >> bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have >> a solid base to patch against, rather than having to expect a major >> merge hassle at the end of beta. > ... > I think it's a good idea in general.
Yep, +1 for running pgindent now. > There are of course people out > there with patches *already* that will have problems with this, but > they'll have the problem eventually anyway. The only real stopper > there is if someone (Simon would be the most likelyi I guess?) has a > big fixup change queued up or so - but if someone does, we can just > postpone until right after that one... It's worth noting that any patches that bit-rot because of pgindent run can be fixed with the following procedure: 1. check out the source tree just before pgindent. 2. Apply patch 3. Run pgindent 4. Diff against source tree just after pgindent. > The followup question is of course, what do we do with fixup patches > that land *after* this? Do we run pgindent once more later in the > cycle? That should be a fairly small run in that case, so it might be > worth doing it that way? Yeah, that was Tom's plan. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
