| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCMS question |
| Date: | 2007-02-23 23:02:03 |
| Message-ID: | 8217.1172271723@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, it's nice. Consider this: Andrew develops some changes to PL/perl
> in his branch. Neil doesn't like something in those changes, so he
> commits a fix there. In the meantime, Tom has been busy with his own
> stuff and committing to the main branch; Andrew can track those changes
> by propagating from the main branch to his branch -- he doesn't need to
> fall behind and update his modified tree once a month and deal with
> umpteen conflicts.
Yah know, the one bit of these pitches that always sounds like pure
snake oil is the claim that they offer some kind of mechanical solution
to merge conflicts. AFAICS that has nothing to do with the SCMS in use
and everything to do with whether your "diff" command is AI-complete.
I note also that CVS does have the ability to merge changes across
branches, we just choose not to use it that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Glen Parker | 2007-02-23 23:02:43 | Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-02-23 22:57:24 | Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007) |