Brendan Jurd wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where > > > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a > > > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with > > > the psql wrap patch and it helped me. > > > > Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people > > would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not: > > > > * no permanent archive of the submitted patch > > > > Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but > having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important. > > What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the > permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative > location for fetching the latest version.
Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our infrastructure and would be permanent. > > * reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he > > downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter > > takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the > > patch is > > > > Well, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've > uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>". If you > just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to > run into problems. Yep. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
