On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > > > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > > > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > > > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
> > >
> > > Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> > > would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
> > >
> > > * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
> > >
> >
> > Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
> > having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.
> >
> > What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
> > permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
> > location for fetching the latest version.
>
> Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
> infrastructure and would be permanent.
Heck, I dont think patch submitters really care. And Ill do whatever
is in the dev faq.
But Its a heck of a lot easier (for me) just to send them in email.
Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on
-hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first,
wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey!
updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I
would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split.