Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Arch (was RE: Refactoring of command.c )

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>,"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,"John Gray" <jgray(at)azuli(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Arch (was RE: Refactoring of command.c )
Date: 2002-02-28 09:00:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I see this going down the road of a religious debate, and to prove the
> point, I bring up BitKeeper:

I admit I don't know much about bitkeeper, except its license is a bit

> >
> >
> > Supports everything that CVS doesn't, including rename events...
> So does BitKeeper :)
> > BTW - I'm not _seriously_ suggesting this change - but it would be cool,
> > wouldn't it?
> >
> > People could start their own local branches which are part of the global
> > namespace, easily merge them in, etc...
> This seems quite pointless for PostgreSQL's development.


Imagine you want to develop a massive new feature for Postgres.  You just
create a branch on your own machine, do all your changes, commits, etc. and
keep it current with the main branch. Then, you can merge it back into the
main tree...  That way you can have a history of commits on your own branch
of the repo!

Disclaimer:  Have only read docs, not actually _used_ 'arch'... :(


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2002-02-28 09:03:41
Subject: Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your
Previous:From: Michael MeskesDate: 2002-02-28 07:04:18
Subject: Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group