On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-Jul-01, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > As I get we're currently need to make high-level decision of whether > > we need this [1]. I was going to bring this topic up at last PGCon, > > but I didn't manage to attend. Does it worth bothering Ildus with > > continuous rebasing assuming we don't have this high-level decision > > yet? > > I agree that having to constantly rebase a patch that doesn't get acted > upon is a bit pointless. I see a bit of a process problem here: if the > patch doesn't apply, it gets punted out of commitfest and reviewers > don't look at it. This means the discussion goes unseen and no > decisions are made. My immediate suggestion is to rebase even if other > changes are needed.
OK, let's do this assuming Ildus didn't give up yet :) > Longer-term I think it'd be useful to have patches > marked as needing "high-level decisions" that may lag behind current > master; maybe we have them provide a git commit-ID on top of which the > patch applies cleanly. +1, Sounds like good approach for me. > I recently found git-imerge which can make rebasing of large patch > series easier, by letting you deal with smaller conflicts one step at a > time rather than one giant conflict; it may prove useful. Thank you for pointing, will try. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
