Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > (Of course this just begs the question of whether we could convert
> > over to GNU indent. But I suppose that isn't a realistic option
> > for the current go-round.)
>
> Yeah, I was wondering the same thing yesterday. The README in the
> pgindent di
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> It would be nice if the developers could run pgindent easily on their
> >> local trees to minimize conflicts.
>
> > The entire NetBSD indent, already patched, is on our FTP server. Isn't
> > that good enough?
>
> News to me,
Tom Lane wrote:
> (Of course this just begs the question of whether we could convert
> over to GNU indent. But I suppose that isn't a realistic option
> for the current go-round.)
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing yesterday. The README in the
pgindent directory mentions a GNU indent version
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It would be nice if the developers could run pgindent easily on their
>> local trees to minimize conflicts.
> The entire NetBSD indent, already patched, is on our FTP server. Isn't
> that good enough?
News to me, and I guess to Alvaro too. Is th
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > One of the reasons I wanted Bruce to post the proposed diff was so that
> > we could eyeball-verify that it's only hitting comments. I think it's
> > worth a little more trouble to check the results given that we plan to
> > run it against 8.1.
>
> I
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
>
> > Agreed, it is not a great idea, but if we don't, then 8.1.X and CVS HEAD
> > will not match indenting, and patches generated by 8.1.X users will not
> > app
Tom Lane wrote:
> One of the reasons I wanted Bruce to post the proposed diff was so that
> we could eyeball-verify that it's only hitting comments. I think it's
> worth a little more trouble to check the results given that we plan to
> run it against 8.1.
It would be nice if the developers coul
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
>
> > Agreed, it is not a great idea, but if we don't, then 8.1.X and CVS
> > HEAD will not match indenting, and patches generated by 8.1.X users
> > will not apply cleanly to CVS HEAD. And if we don'
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
> Agreed, it is not a great idea, but if we don't, then 8.1.X and CVS HEAD
> will not match indenting, and patches generated by 8.1.X users will not
> apply cleanly to CVS HEAD. And i
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I think we should rerun pgindent on 8.1.X and HEAD to correct
> > the reported problems. I am betting 90% of our patches
> > either come from CVS head or 8.1.X branches greater than 8.1.0.
>
> Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
>
> I'm sur
> I think we should rerun pgindent on 8.1.X and HEAD to correct
> the reported problems. I am betting 90% of our patches
> either come from CVS head or 8.1.X branches greater than 8.1.0.
Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
I'm sure it *should* be safe, it just seems
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I think we should rerun pgindent on 8.1.X and HEAD to correct the
> > reported problems. I am betting 90% of our patches either come from
> > CVS head or 8.1.X branches greater than 8.1.0.
>
> Can you post a diff showing what would change exactly?
>
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I think we should rerun pgindent on 8.1.X and HEAD to correct the
> reported problems. I am betting 90% of our patches either come from
> CVS head or 8.1.X branches greater than 8.1.0.
Can you post a diff showing what would change exactly?
I'd like to hold off for at lea
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > My guess is that there is a one-off bug in there.
>
> At least a two-off ... but I think it's more likely some sort of
> wrong-state error, given the narrow places where it happens. I have not
> observed any non-comment code being mis-justified, for in
14 matches
Mail list logo
