On 12/05/2010 12:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Well, ISTM that amounts to not having "official topic branches" :-) I
agree that this is supposed to be one of git's strengths (or more
exactly a strength of distributed SCM's generally). I don't really see
any great value in sanctifying a particular topic branch with some
official status.
What I would like to see is people publishing the location of
development repos so that they can be pulled from or merged, especially
for any large patch.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
