Re: Run pgindent now?

On 05/18/2015 07:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:53:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>> There was talk last time of pgindent-ing head and all back branches,
>>>> because a patch applied to head and back branches was historically only
>>>> pgindented in head, meaning that any future patches in that area could
>>>> not be easily backpatched.
>>>>
>>>> Do we want to do this?
>>> I am personally not excited about that.  I would rather leave the
>>> back-branches alone.
>> It would be awfully nice though if we didn't have to deal with random
>> cross-branch indenting differences.  I've lost, maybe not years off my
>> life, but certainly weeks of not-very-pleasant make-work because of that.
>> I'm surprised you've not had the same experience.
>>
>> If people were good about pgindenting patches meant to be back-patched
>> *before* they committed, it would not be such an issue, but they're not
>> very good about that.
> I couldn't figure out why we were getting that code drift, but now that
> Tom has identified why it happens, it seems good that we fix it.
>   
>> Would it alleviate your concern any if we eased into this, like say only
>> apply the back-branch pgindent run to 9.5 and later branches?  Then at
>> least I could foresee the end of that particular annoyance.
>>
>> (BTW, one practical issue is where would we get typedef lists relevant
>> to the back branches.  I'm not sure if the buildfarm infrastructure is
>> capable of collecting branch-specific data, or if we'd need to rather
>> than just using a union of all branches' typedefs.)
> Uh, I just happen to commit the typedef list file used for the pgindent
> run in src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list, per branch, so we would just
> use the same file.  If typedefs were added in a backbranch (unlikely),
> we probably wouldn't want to use them anyway.
>



The buildfarm animals are perfectly capable of finding typedefs for each 
branch. They haven't been because the default configuration is only to 
collect them for HEAD.

Changing this is easy, especially since I control five of the six 
members currently reporting typedefs successfully, and Tom controls the 
other one.

I've currently set two of them to do run typedefs for all live branches.

The other thing is that the server script that amalgamates them only 
looks at HEAD. That will need to change.

We would probably want an amalgamated list, because there could have 
been symbols on old branches that were deleted in later branches. With 
luck the presence of false positives wouldn't matter. It usually doesn't 
seem to.

cheers

andrew