Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:30 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > So, in our world, wouldn't this translate to 'make cfbot complain'? > > This seems like it would be useful, but we'd have to figure out what > to do about typedefs.list. If the patch is indented with the current > one (which is auto-generated by the entire build farm, remember) it's > likely to mess up a patch that's otherwise properly formatted. We'd > either need to insist that people include updates to typedefs.list in > the patch, or else have the cfbot take a stab at doing those updates > itself.
For my 2c, anyway, I like the idea of having folks update the typedefs themselves when they've got a patch that needs a new typedef to be indented correctly. Having cfbot try to do that seems unlikely to work well. I also didn't mean to imply that we'd push back and ask for a rebase due to indentation changes, but at the same time, I question if it's really that realistic a concern- either whomever posted the patch ran pgindent on it, or they didn't, and I doubt cfbot's check of that would change without there being a conflict between the patch and something that got committed anyway. I also disagree that it's that much of a burden to ask people who are already hacking on PG to install pgindent. All that said, seems that others feel differently and while I still think it's a pretty reasonable idea to have cfbot check, if no one agrees with me, that's fine too. Having the pre-commit hook would help with the downstream issue of pgindent pain from unrelated incorrect indentation, so at least dealing with the patch author not properly indenting to start with would be just on the bits the patch is already modifying, which is a lot better. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
