Re: Recovery Test Framework

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Well, one of the things that makes me uncomfortable is that it's
> > not even clear exactly which set of patches is currently proposed
> > for inclusion. We've seen a whole lot of URLs fly back and forth,
> > many of them pointing at pages that aren't there a few days later.
> > I've been too busy with non-replication-related patches to pay
> > really close attention, but I certainly don't get the impression
> > that there's a stable set of patches waiting to be applied.
>
> See this is one of the things which bothers me. I don't see any
> advantage in forcing Simon to stop making improvements -- and there
> are always improvements to be made -- just to make his code seem
> more stable.

Two things to fix this, and several other problems:

1. Remove the messages size limits on -hackers. They serve no useful
purpose, and they interfere with our development process. If -hackers
isn't already subscriber-only, now would be the time to make it so.

2. Start using more git, as many hackers and committers have already
started to do. This is the kind of situation where CVS just plain
falls down because branching and merging are unmanageably difficult in
it, where in git, they're many-times-a-day operations.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate