Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists

"Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek.Kotala@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> Gregory Stark napsal(a):
>> "Josh Berkus" <josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>>> How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as Bruce
>>> suggested?  I've never found e-mail to be a particularly good way to
track
>>> patches.  
>>
>> The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want to
talk about
>> patches.
>
> I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want go
through
> all patch again and again when new version is released with only few
changes.
> If you are able to have diff between two patch versions you are able
preform
> easy check if all comments are already fixed.

Ah, that's not something a patch tracker or a mailing list would solve.
There
is a tool that would solve this -- a revision control system. 

We aren't using CVS the way it's really intended. If all this development
happened on branches then people could go look at the current version at
any
point, not just when authors decide to announce it. And people could
generate
diffs between the last time they looked at that branch and now etc.

Now the problem is that CVS sucks and creating branches is a heavyweight
operation which imposes a burden forever more. Also there is no access
control
system so you cannot grant commit access to just one branch.

There are newer revision control systems where anyone can create a branch
at
any time and keep it on their local machine. They fit our development
model
much better than CVS when you include the development happening outside
the
committers and the main tree.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS sup****t!

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers