On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:11:20PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Kenneth Marshall escribió:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:42:39PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea --
> > > it just makes the patch harder to read. I suggest just removing
> > > the old code and putting the new code in place. (That's why we
> > > have revision control.)
> > >
> > One thing it helps is building an old version and a new version
> > for comparative testing. Otherwise, you could end up with an
> > apples-to- oranges comparison. I certainly think that the final
> > patch should not have it, but it is useful now for testing and
> > comparisons.
>
> For this purpose I think it would be easier to have a separate tree
> with the patch, and one without it.
Here's one tree. Anyone can get an initial copy as follows:
git clone http://git.postgresql.org/git/~davidfetter/hash/.git
Xiao Meng, if you let me know where your git repo is, say by cloning
onto a machine I can see from the internet and applying your patches
to it, I can pull and let others see it :)
Yes, I know it's a little cumbersome, but we'll get something slicker
as we figure out what "slicker" really should mean.
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
