On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended
> to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like
> continuous integration.
I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying
assumptions that're being made in this discussion:
- Patches must be email attachments to a mailing list
- Changes must be committed by applying a diff
... and take a look at some of the options a git-based workflow might
offer, especially in combination with some of the tools out there that
help track working branches, run CI, etc.
Having grown used to push/pull workflows with CI integration I find the
PostgreSQL patch workflow very frustrating, especially for larger
patches. It's particularly annoying to see a patch series squashed into
a monster patch whenever it changes hands or gets rebased, because it's
being handed around as a great honking diff not a git working branch.
Is it time to stop using git like CVS?
(/hides)
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
