| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-02 21:57:10 |
| Message-ID: | E082748E-7ACC-4305-990D-6CC573E2B3C0@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's a bit premature to speculate about alternate history tools when
> we haven't figured out what the repository is going to look like.
> Right
> at the moment I'm much more concerned about the question of supporting
> a checkout-per-branch workflow. That's something I use pretty nearly
> every day, whereas looking at the history is maybe a once-a-week kind
> of need at most.
Perhaps there's a master repository that corresonds to CVS HEAD, and
then release branches are actually separate git repositories. This
way, those who need to maintain back branches can do so with each
individual repository (and maybe cherry-pick commits to get them to be
the same in each repo; I'm not sure), and everyone else can just use
the master repository (and do their normal local branching and merging
routine as they use it).
Not idea, but might provide some relief…
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-02 22:11:16 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-02 21:33:47 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |