| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, 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 23:47:11 |
| Message-ID: | 4A25B9FF.3010800@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/03/2009 01:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler"<david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> Does that make sense?
> 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.
Building out of tree and ccache are frequently mentioned.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2009-06-02 23:50:18 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-06-02 23:44:49 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |