| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 19:34:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1231788851.30598.125.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 14:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Actually yes we did. There was a bug in git-cvs that we fixed. Its is
> > talked about here:
> > Actually the work is relatively minimal as we have git infrastructure in
> > place. The larger problem is:
> >
> > What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> > Does git actually solve it?
>
> I think the problems it would solve for us are (1) emailing huge
> patches around sucks (it sucks unnecessarily because of the
> mailing-list size limit, but even if someone fixes that, it still
> sucks), (2) no need for a CVS-to-GIT conversion that may incur dirty
> reads; (3) retention of history and authorship when merging patches
> into core. It's possible that it might change our workflow in other
> ways too, but even if we got only those three things I think that
O.k. now the second part :)
Does bzr, mecurial or monotone offer the same or better solution? Bzr in
particular is in very wide use and I run into mecurial all the time.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-12 19:36:08 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-01-12 19:33:42 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |