| From: | "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-03 09:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20090603112344.72789yotu5lxa2ow@mail.bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Quoting "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> I can't escape the feeling that we're missing something basic here.
Perhaps the power (and importance) of merging is still a bit
underestimated, but otherwise I don't think there's much to miss.
> But rebuilding the Linux kernel is hardly a zero-cost operation,
> so how have Linus and co failed to notice this problem? There
> must be some trick they're using that I haven't heard about, or
> they'd not be nearly so pleased with git.
Keep in mind that they don't have half as many back branches to
maintain (taking only 2.4 and 2.6 into account). The minor version
stable branches are not maintained for such a long time (for example,
the last fix for 2.6.19 happened 2 years ago, from what I can tell).
Overall, I think the differences are smaller than between the stable
branches of Postgres' repository.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-06-03 09:36:28 | Re: Question about STRICT |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-06-03 09:12:31 | Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is? |