On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Heck, I dont think patch submitters really care. And Ill do whatever is in the dev faq. But Its a heck of a lot easier (for me) just to send them in email. Plus it seems awkward to move a discussion thats taking place on -hackers over to patches... Granted I could post to patches first, wait an hour then send an email to hackers/reviewer and say hey! updated patch here! But it hardly seems worth it to me... In fact I would argue -patches should go away so we dont have that split. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
