| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest problems |
| Date: | 2014-12-13 09:37:23 |
| Message-ID: | 548C08D3.3030400@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended
> to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like
> continuous integration.
I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying
assumptions that're being made in this discussion:
- Patches must be email attachments to a mailing list
- Changes must be committed by applying a diff
... and take a look at some of the options a git-based workflow might
offer, especially in combination with some of the tools out there that
help track working branches, run CI, etc.
Having grown used to push/pull workflows with CI integration I find the
PostgreSQL patch workflow very frustrating, especially for larger
patches. It's particularly annoying to see a patch series squashed into
a monster patch whenever it changes hands or gets rebased, because it's
being handed around as a great honking diff not a git working branch.
Is it time to stop using git like CVS?
(/hides)
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2014-12-13 09:39:22 | Re: moving from contrib to bin |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-12-13 09:13:52 | Making BackgroundWorkerHandle a complete type or offering a worker enumeration API? |