| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |
| Date: | 2006-03-09 19:37:56 |
| Message-ID: | dupvup$1l61$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Robert Treat wrote:
> There are a few minor things like typos and what not that I have
> seen that I wouldn't waste the time on to send in a patch that I would fix if
> I had commit...
Yipes. Is committing really easier than submitting patches?
I would have thought that sending in a patch is
at least as a light an activity than doing a commit.
IIRC, the mechanics of sending a patch is
1. typing "cvs diff"
1b. reading carefully to make sure all's OK
2. emailing it to patches with an explanation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would expect the mechanics
of committing to be
1. typing "cvs diff" to see what changed, and
1b. reading *extremely* carefully
2. typing "cvs commit" with the same explanation.
If committing is really easier than submitting patches,
it seems someone should either make committing harder or
make submitting patches easier.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-03-09 19:42:06 | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-03-09 18:21:20 | Re: PostgreSQL committer history? |