Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6816.1471270752@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config?
Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? Re: Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. > 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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: