| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: branches_of_interest.txt |
| Date: | 2018-07-02 13:00:12 |
| Message-ID: | 63328.1530536412@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> An alternative would be to create a special branch within the core
>> repo for such data, something like this (The first two lines are the
>> ones that are most important):
>> ...
>> The new branch won't share any history or files with the existing branches.
> Seems like too much magic to me.
Dunno, I was wondering yesterday whether something like that would be
possible. It'd be easier to maintain than a separate repo, for sure.
I wonder what that would look like in gitweb, though. If the website
treated it like a version branch, it'd likely be weird.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Seiler | 2018-07-02 13:12:07 | Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-07-02 12:58:38 | Re: branches_of_interest.txt |