| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
| Date: | 2009-06-06 15:41:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4A2A8E16.2090703@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Yeah, a requirement to work from the back branch forward is quite
> unacceptable IMNSHO. It's also quite unreasonable.
The monotone page about daggy fixes does quite a good job in explaining
why it is helpful. I think it's how to make best use of these tools. And
it's obviously not the same as what worked well in practice with CVS.
Out of interest, and not necessarily related to Postgres: why do you
think it's unreasonable? Fixing the problem where it was introduced
sounds like the most reasonable place to fix it, IMO.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-06 16:08:23 | Re: [Fwd: Re: dblink patches for comment] |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2009-06-06 15:40:54 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |