Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-05-20 11:47:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> To do it before every minor release would require re-indenting HEAD
>>> as well (since the whole point is to keep HEAD and the back branches
>>> consistent). I think we'd get too much push-back from developers
>>> whose pending patches got broken. We can get away with reindenting
>>> HEAD between development cycles, but probably not more often than that.
>> I'm not convinced of that. If we did it more often, it might actually
>> be less disruptive.
> I personally would be fine with doing it more often. I do think that
> that'd require that a) make indent is provided *and* works in VPATH
> builds, b) pg_bsd_indent would have to be in src/tools.
Yeah, this was already discussed upthread: doing it for every minor
release would require a significant jump in the availability of the tool.
I'm okay with working towards that, but it will take awhile to get there.
What we need to consider right now is whether to include back branches
in the existing practice of reindenting between development cycles.
This is somewhat urgent because we already did HEAD, so we have already
created a divergence from HEAD to 9.4 which is going to cause us pain
one way or the other. (It's worth noting for example that Bruce's
trial run of pgindent on 9.4 hit some of the code involved in the
fsync-the-whole-data-directory patch, which means that whatever we decide
to do about that is likely to stumble over pgindent diffs if we don't
re-indent the back branches. So I'm not talking about potential pain
in the vague future, I'm talking about this week.)
I remain in favor of doing a reindent on the back branches right now.
Changing the schedule to do it for every minor release is something to
consider in the future.
regards, tom lane