Re: Managing multiple branches in git - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Markus Wanner
Subject Re: Managing multiple branches in git
Date
Msg-id 20090603112344.72789yotu5lxa2ow@mail.bluegap.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Managing multiple branches in git  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Quoting "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> I can't escape the feeling that we're missing something basic here.

Perhaps the power (and importance) of merging is still a bit  
underestimated, but otherwise I don't think there's much to miss.

> But rebuilding the Linux kernel is hardly a zero-cost operation,
> so how have Linus and co failed to notice this problem?  There
> must be some trick they're using that I haven't heard about, or
> they'd not be nearly so pleased with git.

Keep in mind that they don't have half as many back branches to  
maintain (taking only 2.4 and 2.6 into account). The minor version  
stable branches are not maintained for such a long time (for example,  
the last fix for 2.6.19 happened 2 years ago, from what I can tell).  
Overall, I think the differences are smaller than between the stable  
branches of Postgres' repository.

Regards

Markus Wanner



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is?
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about STRICT