Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config?
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 57B207AA.3000608@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/15/2016 10:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 08/14/2016 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I did a trial run following the current pgindent README procedure, and >>> noticed that the perltidy step left me with a pile of '.bak' files >>> littering the entire tree. This seems like a pretty bad idea because >>> a naive "git add ." would have committed them. It's evidently because >>> src/tools/pgindent/perltidyrc includes --backup-and-modify-in-place. > BTW, after experimenting with this, I did not find any way to get perltidy > to overwrite the original files without making a backup file. > >> We should probably specify -bext='/', which would cause the backup files >> to be deleted unless an error occurred. > Really? That seems a bit magic, and it's certainly undocumented. We must be using different versions. > >> Alternatively, we could just remove the in-place parameter and write a >> command that moved the new .tdy files over the original when perltidy >> was finished. > I was thinking about just removing all the .bak files afterwards, ie > automating the existing manual process. As long as we're making an > invocation script anyway, that's easy. > > WFM. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: