| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed |
| Date: | 2011-06-28 15:20:29 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=NA-dSh0zXdnz-s65Jeiu=O0B6pQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> +1. Spurious branch addition shouldn't cause us much pain - we'd just remove
> the new branch. Unwanted deletion is more disruptive.
How about if we allow addition only of branches matching
/^REL_[0-9_]+_STABLE$/ and disallow deletion of all branches? That
seems like it'd allow the one operation we will likely want to do with
any regularity (creating a new release branch once a year) without
going through hoops, while disallowing most of the problem cases.
The problem with allowing people to create branches and not remove
them is that someone might push a private branch and not be able to
get rid of it. But if we only allow creation of branches that look
like the branches that are supposed to be there, then that shouldn't
be a danger.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2011-06-28 15:26:41 | Re: pgsql: Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-06-28 15:05:21 | Re: pgsql: Branch refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE was removed |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2011-06-28 15:21:34 | Re: Your Postgresql 9.2 patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-28 15:15:06 | Re: add support for logging current role (what to review?) |