| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-02 23:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | 21376.1243985982@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> Does that make sense?
Maybe, but it still seems messy, brute force, and error-prone.
I can't escape the feeling that we're missing something basic here.
It's allegedly one of git's great strengths that it allows you to easily
and quickly switch your attention among multiple development branches.
Well, so it does, if you haven't got any derived files to rebuild.
But rebuilding the Linux kernel is hardly a zero-cost operation,
so how have Linus and co failed to notice this problem? There
must be some trick they're using that I haven't heard about, or
they'd not be nearly so pleased with git.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2009-06-02 23:44:19 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Kerr | 2009-06-02 23:33:21 | [PATCH v2] Add bit operations util header |