Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 20:53:08 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
Message-ID: <20200813035308.GA1137170@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <20200812223409.6di3y2qsnvynao7a@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAGf+fX71Oa2vzg0xdj+vgrjmdVrm=kRLc7H3SEGtCHkGhoWDCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <328084.1597276021@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <328084.1597276021@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 07:47:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:34 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Is there any reason we don't just automatically run pgindent regularly?
> >> Like once a week? And also update typedefs.list automatically, while
> >> we're at it?
> 
> > You know what's better than weekly? Every check-in.
> 
> I'm not in favor of unsupervised pgindent runs, really.  It can do a lot
> of damage to code that was written without thinking about it --- in
> particular, it'll make a hash of comment blocks that were manually
> formatted and not protected with dashes.
> 
> If the workflow is commit first and re-indent later, then we can always
> revert the pgindent commit and clean things up manually; but an auto
> re-indent during commit wouldn't provide that history.

There are competing implementations of assuring pgindent-cleanliness at every
check-in:

1. After each push, an automated followup commit appears, restoring
   pgindent-cleanliness.
2. "git push" results in a commit that melds pgindent changes into what the
   committer tried to push.
3. "git push" fails, for the master branch, if the pushed commit disrupts
   pgindent-cleanliness.

Were you thinking of (2)?  (1) doesn't have the lack-of-history problem, but
it does have the unexpected-damage problem, and it makes gitweb noisier.  (3)
has neither problem, and I'd prefer it over (1), (2), or $SUBJECT.

Regarding typedefs.list, I would use the in-tree one, like you discussed here:

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 07:57:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe the secret is to not allow automated adoption of new typedefs.list
> entries, but to require somebody to add entries to that file by hand,
> even if they're basing it on the buildfarm results.  (This would
> encourage the habit some people have adopted of updating typedefs.list
> along with commits that add typedefs.  I've never done that, but would
> be willing to change if there's good motivation to.)