| From: | kris(at)shannon(dot)id(dot)au |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
| Date: | 2009-06-13 16:13:47 |
| Message-ID: | e51f4f550906130913k58c63e28pb8f1fb6454b0a384@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/6/7 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> So there are a lot of good reasons to work backwards in patching.
> I don't believe that these would be outweighed by some advantage
> in the mechanics of applying an unchanging patch to multiple
> branches (especially since AFAICT the mechanical advantage would
> be pretty darn minimal anyhow).
As another data point, the stable branches of the linux kernel are
actually maintained this way. There is a policy that any patch for the
stable branches must have already be included (in some form) in HEAD.
There is no merging going on. They aren't even using git cherry-pick, but
that's because all backpatching goes into a review list rather than happening
immediately.
The multiple branches and merging that is going on in the linux kernel
is all about development of new features, not fixing of bugs.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-13 16:27:15 | Suppressing occasional failures in copy2 regression test |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-13 15:10:21 | Re: some of the datatypes only support hashing, while others only support sorting |