On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on the row security patch, while I was ultimately unsuccessful in getting the patch mergeable I spent quite a bit of time splitting it up into a logical patch-series for sane review and development. I am quite annoyed that it was simply flattened back into an unreviewable, hard-to-follow blob and committed in that form. It's not like development on a patch series is difficult. You commit small fixes and changes, then you 'git rebase -i' and reorder them to apply to the appropriate changesets. Or you can do a 'rebase -i' and in 'e'dit mode make amendments to individual commits. Or you can commit 'fixup!'s that get auto-squashed. This is part of my grumbling about the use of git like it's still CVS. -- 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