From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ecpg and bison again |
Date: | 2002-06-20 01:23:24 |
Message-ID: | 3D112E8C.C96D5F10@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Actually, this situation is *exactly* what CVS is made to help with.
> > Make a branch on the src/interfaces/ecpg directory (call it, say,
> > "ecpg_big_bison", or whatever you want) and then you can commit on that
> > branch, others can see the branch if they want, and you don't have to
> > carry along code without committing it.
> Seems like a plan...
Michael, is this acceptable to you? If you use remote cvs, then you
would update *only* the src/interfaces/ecpg directory on the branch tag,
and from then on your local copy (and your interactions with cvs) will
be on that branch. Other options to cvs commands can force your local
copy back to the main trunk, can pull main trunk updates up to the
branch, etc etc. And at the end when you don't need it anymore we can
even get rid of the tagged branch altogether.
I'm happy setting up the branch if that would be helpful. Let me know if
this is the way you want to proceed, and if so what you would like the
branch to be called.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-06-20 01:38:27 | Re: SetQuerySnapshot, once again |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-06-19 23:52:38 | Re: [Fwd: [PATCHES] contrib/showguc (was Re: revised sample |