=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilm...@ilmari.org> writes:
> All in all, this makes me +0.5 to bumping the required Perl::Tidy
> version, and +0.5 on (at least considering) bumping it to the latest
> version before the pre-release-branch pgperltidy run.
Nah, I'm pretty much -1 on bumping our perltidy version frequently.
That imposes costs on every developer who wants to track it.
It's unlikely that anyone will be on a platform that updates it
exactly when we decide to change, so most of us are going to be
using hand-installed copies that will have to be hand-updated
whenever we change versions.
As a data point, we were using 20170521 for five years before
adopting 20230309, and 20090616 for seven years before that,
which is as far back as I can trace any definitive info about
which version was being used. Every five years or so sounds
like a sane cadence to me, in terms of developer overhead
versus likely formatting improvements.
(Of course, if a new version comes out that is way better than
what we're using, I could be persuaded that it's worth changing.
But from what you're showing here, that hasn't happened yet.)
regards, tom lane
