On 01/17/2012 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
patch form.
Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer,
the current system takes at least 5 partially redundant steps in two
different systems. I doubt that adding a third system and more
partially redundant steps it going to help that.
Publishing the submission via git is an extra step for the patch
submitter. If that happens, the reviewer can test just be cloning that,
instead of first closing the PostgreSQL one then applying the patch. It
removes the "how do I fish the patch out of the archives?" problem from
the reviewer's side of things.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
