On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 04:55, Craig Ringer <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > (I'm not sure I should piping up here, so feel free to ignore, but > perhaps I have something small to offer. I've been following the list > for a while, but try to keep my mouth shut.)
Meh. All constructive input is welcome! > On 13/11/2009 3:07 AM, Selena Deckelmann wrote: > >> * Distributed revision control as standard for the project > > This would also make it a lot easier to track in-progress work on > particular features of interest, allowing interested users to help with > advance testing of early versions of major feature work. Chasing patches > on a mailing list is not an attractive way to try to keep up with > someone's in-progress work, and is demotivating to people interested in > testing that work. Think: HOT, warm standby, etc. > > It also helps with the issue where a patch is posted, followed by short > thread of corrections and changes you have to manually apply to reach > (you hope) the same codebase others are testing. Sure, sometimes a > follow-up patch is posted with the changes, but often not. This is probably most important for large patches, but the line where it becomes useful is very fuzzy. I think it's helpful at a much lower complexity level than most people realize. I think we should encourage more poeple to use this. How can we do that? Perhaps we can put an encouragement in the description how to submit a patch? How about we add specific feature(s) about tihs to the commitfest management tool? Like the possibility to directly link a git repo/branch with the patch? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
