Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Also, I wonder if it would be better to modify our policies so that we
> update typedefs.list more frequently. Some people include additions
> with their commits, but it's far from SOP.
Perhaps. My own workflow includes pulling down a fresh typedefs.list
from the buildfarm (which is trivial to automate) and then adding any
typedefs invented by the patch I'm working on. The latter part of it
makes it hard to see how the in-tree list would be very helpful; and
if we started expecting patches to include typedef updates, I'm afraid
we'd get lots of patch collisions in that file.
I don't have any big objection to updating the in-tree list more often,
but personally I wouldn't use it, unless we can find a better workflow.
regards, tom lane
