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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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
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) |
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) |