Gregory Stark wrote: > I think a lot of people weren't aware there was anybody testing this patch > ...I wonder how many more people are trying it out?
I think I have an idea to improve this aspect for future commit fests. For a long time at each of my workplaces I've been running a development instance against CVS-HEAD just to make sure our software is more future-proof against up-and-coming releases. We run this system with -enable-debug, asserts, etc, and accept that it's just a development system not expected to be totally stable. If it were just as easy for us to pull from a "all 'pending-patches' for-commit-fest-nov that pass regression tests" branch, I'd happily pull from that instead. I realize in the current system (emailed patches), this would be a horrible pain to maintain such a branch; but perhaps some of the burden could be pushed down to the patch submitters (asking them to merge their own changes into this merged branch). And I hate bringing up the version control flame war again; but git really would make this easier. If all patches were on their own branches; the painful merges into this shared branch would be rare, as the source control system would remember the painful parts of the merges. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
