Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> My workflow up until now has avoiding making updates to typedefs.list
> in patches. I only update typedefs locally, for long enough to indent
> my code. The final patch doesn't retain any typedefs.list changes.
Yeah, I've done the same and will have to stop.
> I guess that I can't do that anymore. Hopefully maintaining the
> typedefs.list file isn't as inconvenient as it once seemed to me to
> be.
I don't think it'll be a problem. If your rule is "add new typedef
names added by your patch to typedefs.list, keeping them in
alphabetical order" then it doesn't seem very complicated, and
hopefully conflicts between concurrently-developed patches won't
be common.
regards, tom lane