> On Nov 28, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think that'd be taking it too far, especially given that the dependency >>> on a typedefs list means that the git hook might have a different idea >>> of what's correctly indented than the committer does. It'd be very hard >>> to debug such discrepancies and figure out what would satisfy the hook. > >> It sounds like it just requires that the committer also commit any changes >> to the typedefs list, such that the indenter run by the git hook can use the >> same list the committer is using. For many commits, the typedefs list won't >> change, and the hook would just use the most recent one from the repository. > >> Barring any objections, I'll see if I can make that work on my local git repo >> and post a patch if so. > > The other problem that would have to be considered is cross-branch > variation in the indent rules. We've generally been in the habit of > back-patching HEAD diffs without worrying about whether they meet > back-branch rules; certainly nobody maintains typedefs.list in the > back branches. Maybe the most expedient answer for that is to only > enforce indentation in HEAD. > > I'm still not really on board with this though. I can definitely > see the day coming when it would block a security patch and somebody > would be scrambling desperately to fix their indentation under time > pressure, even though perhaps the patch had been fine when created.
Ok, I'll consider the idea dead. I don't see any solution to that. mark
