On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 01:28:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > What we need to consider right now is whether to include back branches > in the existing practice of reindenting between development cycles. > This is somewhat urgent because we already did HEAD, so we have already > created a divergence from HEAD to 9.4 which is going to cause us pain > one way or the other. (It's worth noting for example that Bruce's > trial run of pgindent on 9.4 hit some of the code involved in the > fsync-the-whole-data-directory patch, which means that whatever we decide > to do about that is likely to stumble over pgindent diffs if we don't > re-indent the back branches. So I'm not talking about potential pain > in the vague future, I'm talking about this week.)
One issue I discussed is doing a pgindent-only release so users doing a diff would not have pgindent diffs mixed with fixes. If we are going to do an fsync-fix-only release soon, adding pgindent diffs to that would be as minimal a mixing as we could hope for. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
