Ron Mayer <rm...@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes: > 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).
I've considered maintaining such a repository a few times and dismissed it when I realized how much work it would be to maintain. > 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. We have git repositories, I still think maintaining a merged tree with dozens of patches would be a lot of work. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
