Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> > > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> > > stable URL where they can keep updating the content. I did that with
> > > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
> >
> > Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> > would *not* do it that way. There are two reasons why not:
> >
> > * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
> >
>
> Yes. I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
> having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.
>
> What about uploading patches to the wiki? That way we have the
> permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
> location for fetching the latest version.
Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
infrastructure and would be permanent.
> > * reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
> > downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
> > takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
> > patch is
> >
>
> Well, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've
> uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>". If you
> just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to
> run into problems.
Yep.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
