Em qua, 22 de mai de 2019 às 14:08, Tom Lane escreveu:
>
> I wrote:
> > Hearing no objections, I'll plan on running pgindent tomorrow sometime.
>
> And done.
>
> > The new underlying pg_bsd_indent (2.1) is available now from
> > https://git.postgresql.org/git/pg_bsd_indent.git
>
> Please update
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> In my experience, changes to function declarations in header files
> happen a lot in forks. So applying the pgindent change to backbranches
> would cause some trouble.
> On the other hand, it seems to me that patches that we backpatch between
> PostgreSQL branches
On 2019-05-21 23:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would we want to also apply this to the back branches to avoid spurious
>> conflicts?
> I think we should hold off on any talk of that until we get some results
> from Mark Dilger (or anyone else) on how much pain it would cause for
> people carrying private
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Hearing no objections, I'll plan on running pgindent tomorrow sometime.
>
> And done.
>
> > The new underlying pg_bsd_indent (2.1) is available now from
> > https://git.postgresql.org/git/pg_bsd_indent.git
>
> Please update your
I wrote:
> Hearing no objections, I'll plan on running pgindent tomorrow sometime.
And done.
> The new underlying pg_bsd_indent (2.1) is available now from
> https://git.postgresql.org/git/pg_bsd_indent.git
Please update your local copy if you have one.
regards, tom
Mark Dilger writes:
> On May 17, 2019, at 12:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anybody around here got large patches they're carrying against
>> back branches, that they could try reapplying after running
>> a newer version of pgindent?
> I have forks of 9.1 and 9.5 that each amount to large changes
>
> On May 17, 2019, at 12:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2019-05-17 13:47:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I dunno, how far back are you thinking? I've occasionally wished we
>>> could reindent all the back branches to match HEAD, but realistically,
>>> people carrying
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-05-17 13:47:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dunno, how far back are you thinking? I've occasionally wished we
>> could reindent all the back branches to match HEAD, but realistically,
>> people carrying out-of-tree patches would scream.
> I somehow thought we'd
Hi,
On 2019-05-17 13:47:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Would we want to also apply this to the back branches to avoid spurious
> > conflicts?
>
> I dunno, how far back are you thinking? I've occasionally wished we
> could reindent all the back branches to match HEAD,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:47:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-05-17 10:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, how do people feel about adopting the function prototype
> >> indenting change discussed in
> >>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-05-17 10:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, how do people feel about adopting the function prototype
>> indenting change discussed in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug%40mail.gmail.com
> I think
Hi,
On 2019-05-17 10:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We should do a pgindent run fairly soon, so that people with patches
> awaiting the next CF will have plenty of time to rebase them as
> necessary.
+1
> I don't want to do it right this minute, to avoid making trouble for the
> several urgent
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:29:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We should do a pgindent run fairly soon, so that people with patches
> awaiting the next CF will have plenty of time to rebase them as necessary.
> I don't want to do it right this minute, to avoid making trouble for the
> several urgent
We should do a pgindent run fairly soon, so that people with patches
awaiting the next CF will have plenty of time to rebase them as necessary.
I don't want to do it right this minute, to avoid making trouble for the
several urgent patches we're trying to get done before Monday's beta1
wrap. But
14 matches
Mail list logo
