On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
> > Gregory Stark napsal(a):
> >> "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> How about hacking together a simple patch tracker instead, as
> >>> Bruce suggested? I've never found e-mail to be a particularly
> >>> good way to track patches.
> >>
> >> The thing is that we don't just want to "track" patches. We want
> >> to talk about patches.
> >
> > I think we want to have both. If you have big patch you don't want
> > go through all patch again and again when new version is released
> > with only few changes. If you are able to have diff between two
> > patch versions you are able preform easy check if all comments are
> > already fixed.
>
> Ah, that's not something a patch tracker or a mailing list would
> solve. There is a tool that would solve this -- a revision control
> system.
There's already an official git repository, and it plays nicely with
the official CVS it sits on top of :)
http://git.postgresql.org/
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
