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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, 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 13:49:17
Message-ID: 20040325134917.GE980@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:05:05AM -0500, 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?

I think it's much better for the reviewer to be able to see the history
of changes of the patch (branch), without having to look at the whole
patch again every time a small change is made to it.

Or do you diff two versions of a patch to see if the author only changed
what he says he changed? Wow, a diff of a diff, _that_ should be
difficult to read.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without"

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Garamond 2004-03-25 13:52:02 primary key in table hierarchy
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-03-25 13:27:21 Re: 7.4.2 on Solaris 9 - Error

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-03-25 14:37:30 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-03-25 13:05:05 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)