Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > There's another option here as well, that is a bit "softer", is to use a > pre-commit hook.
Yeah, +1 on a pre-commit idea to help address this. I certainly agree with Andres that it's quite annoying to deal with commits coming in that aren't indented properly but are in some file that I'm working on. > This obviously only works in the case where we can rely on the committers > to remember to install such a hook, but given the few committers that we do > have, I think we can certainly get that up to an "acceptable rate" fairly > easily. FWIW, this is similar to what we do in the pgweb, pgeu and a few > other repositories, to ensure python styleguides are followed. Yeah, no guarantee, but definitely seems like it'd be a good improvement. > > I was objecting to (2). (1) would perhaps work. (3) could be pretty > > darn annoying, especially if it blocks a time-critical security patch. > > FWIW, I agree that (2) seems like a really bad option. In that suddenly a > committer has committed something they were not aware of. Yeah, I dislike (2) a lot too. > Yeah, I'm definitely not a big fan of automated commits, regardless of if > it's just indent or both indent+typedef. It's happened at least once, and I > think more than once, that we've had to basically hard reset the upstream > repository and clean things up after automated commits have gone bonkers > (hi, Bruce!). Having an automated system do the whole flow of > change->commit->push definitely invites this type of problem. Agreed, automated commits seems terribly risky. > There are many solutions that do such things but that do it in the "github > workflow" way, which is they do change -> commit -> create pull request, > and then somebody eyeballs that pullrequest and approves it. We don't have > PRs, but we could either have a script that simply sends out a patch to a > mailinglist, or we could have a script that maintains a separate branch > which is auto-pgindented, and then have a committer squash-merge that > branch after having reviewed it. > > Maybe something like that in combination with a pre-commit hook per above. So, in our world, wouldn't this translate to 'make cfbot complain'? I'm definitely a fan of the idea of having cfbot flag these and then we maybe get to a point where it's not the committers dealing with fixing patches that weren't pgindent'd properly, it's the actual patch submitters being nagged about it... Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
