Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Gregory Stark wrote: > > > > You're still merging patches and reviewing patches by hand, without any > > > > of the > > > > tools to, for example, view incremental changes in the branch, view the > > > > logs > > > > of the branch, merge the branch into the code automatically taking into > > > > account the known common ancestor. Instead of receiving a 20k patch > > > > without > > > > any tools to work with it you would be given a branch name and be able > > > > to view > > > > and merge it into the main branch using the tools. > > > > > > I don't see this as a win. I understand the ability to see the patch as > > > separate revisions by the user, but for patch application, we really > > > need to see the diff -c of the entire patch. > > > > The fact that you're still thinking in "patch application" means you're > > still stuck in the CVS worldview. To "apply a patch" in a distributed > > SCM(*) really means to merge a branch into the main development branch. > > Of course, you can still see the entire "diff -c" if you want. > > How do I modify the patch before application if it comes from a branch?
You commit your change to the branch. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
