On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:04:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've raised this before, but would like to suggest again that there might be > > virtue in branching earlier in the dev cycle - maybe around the time of the > > first beta. > > Given the amount of patching that's gone on, branching 8.1 earlier would > have meant a great deal more work for the committers, in the form of > double-patching stuff.
That's because of CVS. Other systems deal with this issues in a more committer-friendly manner. You just have to look at how using BitKeeper has dramatically increased the development going on at the Linux kernel. Whatever your opinion is on Linux itself, that change alone is something to consider. Also, committers are not the only users of our SCM tool. Consider the autovacuum-backend-integration patch. Nobody reviewed it because it's a lot of hassle to take the patch, apply it locally, test it, and continue development. Because if later Matthew comes up with an updated patch, the reviewer has trouble merging both things, and re-reviewing the new patch ("did he change this in the new patch, or is it the same as before?"). Branching the whole thing could mean that I can integrate his own change history in my private tree, so I can see what went on since the last time; and he can see what changes I did and merge it; etc. The final step, which would be your own review and integration into the official tree, has a better patch to begin with. Which is the way Linux works. I think I will start using Subversion to track Postgres, just to see how it goes. -- Alvaro Herrera (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) "If it wasn't for my companion, I believe I'd be having the time of my life" (John Dunbar) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]