From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, YebHavinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net" <w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
Date: | 2010-12-05 17:41:20 |
Message-ID: | 4CFBCEC0.2090303@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/05/2010 12:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 12/04/2010 07:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to official topic branches at some point in the future, but I think it's premature to speculate about whether it'd be useful here.
>> I'd need a lot of convincing if it imposed an extra burden on people
>> like Tom. The only way I could see working is if some committer took
>> ownership of the topic branch and guaranteed to keep it pretty much in
>> sync with the master branch.
> Well, allegedly this is one of the reasons we moved to git. Anybody can
> do that in their own repository, just as easily as a core committer
> could. AFAICS it's not necessary for the core repo to contain the
> branch, up until the point where it's ready to merge into master.
>
Well, ISTM that amounts to not having "official topic branches" :-) I
agree that this is supposed to be one of git's strengths (or more
exactly a strength of distributed SCM's generally). I don't really see
any great value in sanctifying a particular topic branch with some
official status.
What I would like to see is people publishing the location of
development repos so that they can be pulled from or merged, especially
for any large patch.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-12-05 17:52:27 | allow COPY routines to read arbitrary numbers of fields |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-05 17:13:32 | Re: serializable read only deferrable |