Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 12/04/2010 07:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to official topic branches at some point
>> in the future, but I think it's premature to speculate about whether it'd be
>> useful here.
> I'd need a lot of convincing if it imposed an extra burden on people
> like Tom. The only way I could see working is if some committer took
> ownership of the topic branch and guaranteed to keep it pretty much in
> sync with the master branch.
Well, allegedly this is one of the reasons we moved to git. Anybody can
do that in their own repository, just as easily as a core committer
could. AFAICS it's not necessary for the core repo to contain the
branch, up until the point where it's ready to merge into master.
>> What is needed right now is design work, not code.
> Indeed. In this case I don't think we even have agreement on the
> features let alone how they might work.
Yeah. But it's fair to look ahead to how development might proceed.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
