From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SCMS question |
Date: | 2007-02-23 20:42:58 |
Message-ID: | 20070223204258.GI20242@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > You're still merging patches and reviewing patches by hand, without any of the
> > tools to, for example, view incremental changes in the branch, view the logs
> > of the branch, merge the branch into the code automatically taking into
> > account the known common ancestor. Instead of receiving a 20k patch without
> > any tools to work with it you would be given a branch name and be able to view
> > and merge it into the main branch using the tools.
>
> I don't see this as a win. I understand the ability to see the patch as
> separate revisions by the user, but for patch application, we really
> need to see the diff -c of the entire patch.
The fact that you're still thinking in "patch application" means you're
still stuck in the CVS worldview. To "apply a patch" in a distributed
SCM(*) really means to merge a branch into the main development branch.
Of course, you can still see the entire "diff -c" if you want.
(*) I'm not sure if this is true of all distributed SCMs, or just a
property of Monotone. Really it's the only one I follow more-or-less
closely.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benjamin Arai | 2007-02-23 20:49:09 | Re: Priorities for users or queries? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-02-23 20:31:45 | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Update Solaris FAQ. |