From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
Date: | 2009-06-03 14:18:10 |
Message-ID: | 4A268622.90608@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure whether we should mark the old branches getting merges
>>> down or the new branches getting merged up. I suspect I'm missing
>>> something but I don't see any reason one is better than the other.
>> If you go from older to newer, the automatic merge algorithms have a
>> better chance of doing something smart since they can track previous
>> changes. At least I think that's how it works.
>>
>> But I think for most of the changes it wouldn't make a huge difference,
>> though - manual merging would be needed anyway.
>
> In practice, isn't it more likely that you would develop the change on
> the newest branch and then try to back-port it? However you do the
> import, you're going to want to do subsequent things the same way.
That's definitely the order in which *I* work, and I think that's how
most others do it as well.
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-06-03 14:20:24 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-03 14:17:06 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |