On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended > to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like > continuous integration.
I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying assumptions that're being made in this discussion: - Patches must be email attachments to a mailing list - Changes must be committed by applying a diff ... and take a look at some of the options a git-based workflow might offer, especially in combination with some of the tools out there that help track working branches, run CI, etc. Having grown used to push/pull workflows with CI integration I find the PostgreSQL patch workflow very frustrating, especially for larger patches. It's particularly annoying to see a patch series squashed into a monster patch whenever it changes hands or gets rebased, because it's being handed around as a great honking diff not a git working branch. Is it time to stop using git like CVS? (/hides) -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
