On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> Well, it sounds about perfect for my use case too (which is >>> approximately the same as Tom's), but the description makes it sound >>> unsupported. It doesn't work on Windows which doesn't bother me >>> personally but may be a showstopper more generally. > >> It's not a showstopper for me. Can't speak for Magnus, Andrew or >> anyone else working on Windows though. > > Seems like we'd want all committers to be using a similar work-flow > for back-patching, else we're going to have random variations in what > patch sets look like in the history. > > I think the appropriate question is why doesn't it work on Windows, > and is that fixable? Without having looked, I'm guessing the issue > is that it depends on hardlinks or symlinks --- and we know those are > available, as long as you're using recent Windows with NTFS. Which > does not sound like an unreasonable baseline requirement for someone > committing from Windows.
It's a simple perl script that uses symlinks: http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=contrib/workdir/git-new-workdir But... it doesn't really break the workflow as far as I can see - it will just mean Windows users need multiple full copies of the repo for each branch until the script could be hacked up. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers