Gregory Stark wrote: > "Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > All, > > > >> We could release "alpha" releases. But that assumes that these reviews > >> actually result in stuff getting committed even if they're not 100% > >> complete. I think that would be a good thing but I don't think everyone > >> else agrees. Also, not all reviewers are committers. > > > > This is what I'm thinking, too. It would be a *lot* easier for the Sun > > peformance team (and presumably others) to test performance of stuff which > > was getting committed rather than having to hunt down *this* version of > > *that* patch and apply it against the snapshot from *this specific date* ... > > Fwiw I had put together a jumbo patch for three of the patches which you were > interested in, HOT, LDC, and GII. This was specifically for the benefit of > users like you to get an early experience of these patches. I think it was > actually shortly after you had reported a problem running them together which > was blocking you from running benchmarks on them.
It would make a lot of sense to keep them in a branch of a distributed SCMS where you can propagate stuff from mainline into the branches. Maybe what we, developers, should do is start using a DSCM privately to keep track of our patches and of mainline. I know some derived projects already use one (Postgres-R?) -- Alvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4" "Limítate a mirar... y algun día veras" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings