On 01/17/2012 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
>> The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
>> URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
>> patch form.
> Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer,
> the current system takes at least 5 partially redundant steps in two
> different systems. I doubt that adding a third system and more
> partially redundant steps it going to help that.
Publishing the submission via git is an extra step for the patch
submitter. If that happens, the reviewer can test just be cloning that,
instead of first closing the PostgreSQL one then applying the patch. It
removes the "how do I fish the patch out of the archives?" problem from
the reviewer's side of things.
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-01-17 20:17:05|
|Subject: Re: automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)|
|Previous:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2012-01-17 18:15:33|
|Subject: Re: Group commit, revised|