Re: SCMS question

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCMS question
Date: 2007-02-23 20:42:58
Message-ID: 20070223204258.GI20242@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Benjamin Arai 2007-02-23 20:49:09 Re: Priorities for users or queries?
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-02-23 20:31:45 Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Update Solaris FAQ.