| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Date: | 2009-01-26 23:07:39 |
| Message-ID: | 87hc3lhdj8.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> I realize in the current system (emailed patches), this would be a horrible
> pain to maintain such a branch; but perhaps some of the burden could be
> pushed down to the patch submitters (asking them to merge their own changes
> into this merged branch).
I've considered maintaining such a repository a few times and dismissed it
when I realized how much work it would be to maintain.
> And I hate bringing up the version control flame war again; but git really
> would make this easier. If all patches were on their own branches; the
> painful merges into this shared branch would be rare, as the source control
> system would remember the painful parts of the merges.
We have git repositories, I still think maintaining a merged tree with dozens
of patches would be a lot of work.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-01-26 23:11:11 | Re: On SCM |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2009-01-26 22:56:37 | On SCM |