Re: SCMS question
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Warren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-02-23T20:42:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Gregory Stark wrote: > > You're still merging patches and reviewing patches by hand, without any of the > > tools to, for example, view incremental changes in the branch, view the logs > > of the branch, merge the branch into the code automatically taking into > > account the known common ancestor. Instead of receiving a 20k patch without > > any tools to work with it you would be given a branch name and be able to view > > and merge it into the main branch using the tools. > > I don't see this as a win. I understand the ability to see the patch as > separate revisions by the user, but for patch application, we really > need to see the diff -c of the entire patch. The fact that you're still thinking in "patch application" means you're still stuck in the CVS worldview. To "apply a patch" in a distributed SCM(*) really means to merge a branch into the main development branch. Of course, you can still see the entire "diff -c" if you want. (*) I'm not sure if this is true of all distributed SCMs, or just a property of Monotone. Really it's the only one I follow more-or-less closely. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.