Hi,
Quoting "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
That might work, but then we better be pretty darn confident that that
"fresh conversion" is actually correct. I'd rather have them going
side-by-side so that we can verify everything before shutting the old
system off.
I agree, as long as you take non-incremental converters into account
as well. Otherwise, we'd mostly test functionality we don't need later
on (incremental updates).
BTW, can anyone comment on whether and how we can maintain the current
split between master repository (that's not even accessible to
non-committers) and a public mirror? If only from a standpoint of
security paranoia, I'd rather like to preserve that split, but I don't
know how well git will play with it.
You can set up one repository to mirror another.
Yes, that's the point of a distributed VCS. The good thing about it is
that everybody is free to work (including committing) *on his own
copy* of the branch and then provide a patch (or patches) for
committers (or gain commit rights and upload his work later on). That
fits pretty well with the Postgres development process, AFAICT.
Regards
Markus Wanner
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
