Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

From: Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Date: 2004-03-25 20:05:19
Message-ID: BDA431A7-7E97-11D8-9C78-000393CFE6B8@spy.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers


On Mar 25, 2004, at 5:05, Jan Wieck wrote:

> The difference here is that instead of submitting a patch for review,
> which is then frozen, the branch owner can (and that means some will,
> no matter what your intentions are) keep modifying the branch during
> the review process, other than just keeping it in sync with
> conflicting changes to the trunk. How do you plan to prevent that?

You do both. Changesets are immutable. A patch cannot be modified.
However, new patches can be added for tracking changes to the tree.
You can review the original diff, and you can review how it's tracked
head-of-line changes independently. You can take the original diff and
manually wedge it in if you want, or you can see how the latest
progress differs before submission.

--
Dustin Sallings

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dustin Sallings 2004-03-25 20:07:23 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Dustin Sallings 2004-03-25 20:03:36 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dustin Sallings 2004-03-25 20:07:23 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Dustin Sallings 2004-03-25 20:03:36 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)