On 7/3/23 04:18, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2023-07-02 Su 20:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>>> koel has failed its indent step after these commits. I am unsure
>>> whether you need to fix this as it does not seem that we have a
>>> consensus to automate that, just FYI.
>> Well, *somebody* has to fix it, otherwise why did we set up the animal?
>> But the impression I had was that a majority of committers want to
>> start keeping the tree pgindent-clean.
>>
>>
>
>
> I think we need to spell out expectations more clearly. Here's what I
> said to Tomas in a private message:
>
> I think the expectation is that, while there might be cases where
> you want to make some commits and then indent afterwards, so the
> changes are clear, for most cases you should try to commit
> pre-indented patches.
>
> But that's just my opinion. I think we need to spell it out more formally.
>
I've pushed a fix for the indentation issues caused by my commits (this
one and the commit touching trigger.c). But I agree with Andrew it'd be
good to spell out the expectations - perhaps it's spelled out somewhere
deep in the pgindent, not sure.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company