On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > "Zdenek Kotala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Gregory Stark napsal(a): > >> "Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>> How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as > >>> Bruce suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly > >>> good way to track patches. > >> > >> The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want > >> to talk about patches. > > > > I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want > > go through all patch again and again when new version is released > > with only few changes. If you are able to have diff between two > > patch versions you are able preform easy check if all comments are > > already fixed. > > Ah, that's not something a patch tracker or a mailing list would > solve. There is a tool that would solve this -- a revision control > system.
There's already an official git repository, and it plays nicely with the official CVS it sits on top of :) http://git.postgresql.org/ Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
