On 12/07/2011 04:58 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> PS: I forgot to mention that 2 test cases covering the two above query
> types are deliberately left failing in the v4-wip patch.
>
It's not completely clear what happens next with this. Are you hoping
code churn here has calmed down enough for Jaime or someone else to try
and look at this more already? Or should we wait for a new update based
on the feedback that Heikki and Tom have already provided first, perhaps
one that proposes fixes for these two test cases?
One general suggestion about the fight with upstream changes you've run
into here. Now that you're settling into the git workflow, you might
consider publishing updates to a site like Github in the future too.
That lets testing of the code at the point you wrote it always
possible. Given just the patch, reviewers normally must reconcile any
bit rot before they can even compile your code to try it. That gets
increasingly sketchy the longer your patch waits before the next
CommitFest considers it. With a published git working tree, reviewers
can pull that for some hands-on testing whenever, even if a merge
wouldn't actually work out at that point. You just need to be careful
not to push an update that isn't self-consistent to the world. I
normally attach the best formatted patch I can and publish to Github.
Then reviewers can use whichever they find easier, and always have the
option of postponing a look at merge issues if they just want to play
with the program.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
