On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > and most times, those have to be merged into the source tree due to
> > > > extensive changes anyway ... maybe we should just get rid of the use of
> > > > pgindent altogether? its not something that I've ever seen required on
> > > > other projects I've worked on ... in general, most projects seem to
> > > > require that a submit'd patch from an older release be at least tested on
> > > > the newest CVS, and with nightly snapshots being created as it is, I
> > > > really don't see why such a requirement is a bad thing ...
> > >
> > > In an ideal world, people would test on CVS but in reality, the patches
> > > are usually pretty small and if they fix the problem, we apply them.
> > >
> > > Seems like a lot of work just to avoid pgindent.
> >
> > If they are small, then why is pgindent required? And if they are large,
> > is it too much to ask that the person submitting tests the patch to make
> > sure its even applicable in the newest snapshot?
>
> The problem is that the small ones don't apply cleanly if they don't
> match the indenting in the source.
but ... if they are small, manually merging isn't that big of a deal ...
and if anyone else has been working in that code since release, there is a
chance it won't mergef cleanly ...
Quite frankly, I'm for pgindent after branch and before beta ...