On 2014-12-15 11:21:03 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > > I should add here that the QEMU folk do tend to go to great lengths to > > preserve bisectability; often intermediate compatibility APIs are > > introduced early in the patchset and then removed at the very end when > > the final feature is implemented. > > I agree with Tom on this, and I want to point out that certain software > projects benefit more from modularized development than others , e.g. > QEMU is an interface library and therefore probably does things in a > more modular way than usual. For example, they are probably not adding > new SQL commands or configuration settings in the same way Postgres > does.
I'm not following. What do you mean with 'interface library'? I'm pretty sure qemu very regularly adds features including configuration settings/parameters. > It would be interesting to compare the directory span of a > typical Postgres patch vs. a QEMU or Linux kernel one. I don't believe this really is a question of the type of project. I think it's more that especially the kernel has had to deal with similar problems at a much larger scale. And the granular approach somewhat works for them. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
