Re: Git conversion status

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Git conversion status
Date: 2010-09-22 23:47:12
Message-ID: 201009222347.o8MNlCj02992@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> >> As far as I can see, I need to go to the master clone, run a checkout
> >> and pull on each branch, and *then* a pull on the local clone updates to
> >> the latest head on that branch. It is not enough to pull when the
> >> master branch is checked out.
>
> > Ah, crap. You're right. Sucktastic.
>
> As far as I can tell so far, the multiple-workdir setup dominates all
> the others in terms of minimizing the amount of "git pull" monkeywork.

Yes, that is what I am using too.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Tiikkaja 2010-09-22 23:59:15 Re: top-level DML under CTEs
Previous Message fazool mein 2010-09-22 23:28:30 Re: Shutting down server from a backend process, e.g. walrceiver