On 2017-06-16 14:42:38 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:23:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, that's something we need to discuss. I originally argued for > > back-patching the new rules, whatever they are (ie, run the new > > pgindent on the back branches whenever we've agreed that the dust > > has settled). But I'm starting to realize that that's likely to > > be horrid for anyone who's carrying out-of-tree patches, as I know > > a lot of packagers do for instance. We have to trade off our own > > inconvenience in making back-patches against inconvenience to > > people who are maintaining private patchsets. > > Can't they sync up to just before our pgindent commit and run pgindent > on their own code base?
That doesn't really help that much if you have a series of patches that you want to keep independent, e.g. because you might want to submit to postgres. And you'll also get a bunch of annoying to resolve merge conflicts, even if they're easier to resolve with that methodology. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
