On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> > * David Fetter <david@fetter.org> [080710 10:19]:
>
> > > 2. Allow people who are not currently committers on CVS HEAD to
> > > make needed changes.
> >
> > Uh, the point of git is it's distributed, so you don't need to be
> > involved for them to do that....
>
> Yep. People can already clone the master Pg trunk, and start from
> there to build patches. If they use their *private* repos for this,
> awesome -- they have complete history. If they want other
> developers to chime in with further patches, they just need to
> publish their repos,
Publishing those repos is easiest on git.postgresql.org.
> and let other clone them. Then, they can pull from those other
> repos, or allow others to push.
Again, git.postgresql.org is good for this and other places are not
for reasons I've mentioned before.
> If you want to keep updating to trunk as it moves forward, I guess
> you'd need to propagate the changes from trunk to your RECURSIVE
> repo. And if upstream changes the patch to fix some bug, you really
> need that bugfix to show as a separate (and probably very small)
> patch.
>
> Unapplying the patch and applying it back seems the worst way to
> proceed.
Fine. I proceeded in ignorance and will fix. I'm more than delighted
to start the whole thing over based on this.
> Like Aidan, I think that trying to centralize the GIT repo is trying to
> circumvent GIT's design ideas rather than working with them.
It's not about centralizing, but about letting a bunch of people
publish their changes to the same spot without being committers on the
Postgres project.
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
