* David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> [080709 14:45]:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:28:34PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > In fact, I fail to see the point of you providing the repo if the
> > upstream guys are apparently not using it ...
> It's *very* early days to be dismissing git entirely. We don't have
> auths fixed up yet, and I contend that that's because the people who
> have sudo on the git machine are unwilling to create git-shell
> accounts for people who need them.
I don't think that was intended to dismiss git entirely, but only
question what the point of this particular git repo/branch is for:
Is it just to provide an alternative way to fetch the patch? I would
have thought that anybody who can compile PostgreSQL from source can
apply a patch (if the patch available and applies cleanly).
The with_recursive branch doesn't seem to provide any of the nice
goodies that git could provide (i.e. patch history, merge corresponding
to various versions so you can easily see what changed, etc)
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2008-07-09 20:45:53|
|Subject: Re: Summary of some postgres portability issues|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-07-09 20:40:54|
|Subject: Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2008-07-10 00:06:19|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECURSIVE updated to CVS TIP|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-07-09 19:11:25|
|Subject: Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences|