On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 1:57 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-Aug-13, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > That is:
> > 1. Whenever a patch is pushed on master on the main repo a process kicked
> > off (or maybe wait 5 minutes to coalesce multiple patches if there are)
> > 2. This process checks out master, and runs pgindent on it
> > 3. When done, this gets committed to a new branch (or just overwrites an
> > existing branch of course, we don't need to maintain history here) like
> > "master-indented". This branch can be in a different repo, but one that
> > starts out as a clone of the main one
> > 4. A committer (any committer) can then on regular basis examine the
> > differences by fetch + diff. If they're happy with it, cherry pick it in.
> > If not, figure out what needs to be done to adjust it.
>
> Sounds good -- for branch master.
>
> Yesterday I tried to indent some patch across all branches, only to
> discover that I'm lacking the pg_bsd_indent necessary for the older
> ones. I already have two, but apparently I'd need *four* different
> versions with current branches (1.3, 2.0, 2.1, 2.1.1)
>
FWIW, for back-branches, I just do similar to what Tom said above [1]
("My own habit when back-patching has been to indent the HEAD patch
per-current-rules and then preserve that layout as much as possible in
the back branches"). If we want we can maintain all the required
versions of pg_bsd_indent but as of now, I am not doing so and thought
that following some approximation rule (do it for HEAD and try my best
to maintain the layout for back-branches) is good enough.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/397020.1597291716%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
