Horton

Re: 8.4 release planning

Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-01-26T23:07:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.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