Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-18 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 09:57:45AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 16 January 2016 at 02:10, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:13:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Basically this is trading off convenience of the committer (all of the > > > alternatives Noah mentions are somewhat ann

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On 16 January 2016 at 02:10, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:13:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs writes: > > > On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch wrote: > > >> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to > lines > > >> the patch would not

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-15 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:13:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch wrote: > >> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines > >> the patch would not otherwise change. > > > Could we review again why this matt

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I do think it makes life easier when going through the git history if > semantic changes are separated from formatting changes. I agree. And I agree with Mark Dilger's point, too. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/13/2016 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs writes: On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch wrote: I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines the patch would not otherwise change. Could we review again why this matters? Basically this is trading of

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-13 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm willing to go with the "separate commit to reindent individual files" > approach if there's a consensus that that makes for a cleaner git history. > But I'm not 100% convinced it matters. I recently changed the configuration of my text editor

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-13 Thread Mark Dilger
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs writes: >> On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch wrote: >>> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines >>> the patch would not otherwise change. > >> Could we review again why this matters? > >

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-13 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch wrote: >> I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines >> the patch would not otherwise change. > Could we review again why this matters? Basically this is trading off convenience of the committer (all

Re: [HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On 13 January 2016 at 14:48, Noah Misch wrote: > I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines > the patch would not otherwise change. Could we review again why this matters? -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/

[HACKERS] pgindent-polluted commits

2016-01-13 Thread Noah Misch
I've noticed commits, from a few of you, carrying pgindent changes to lines the patch would not otherwise change. (That is to say, the next pgindent run would have made the same changes anyway.) From https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch#Reasons_your_patch_might_be_returned: The