On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster
patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on
the row security patch, while I was ultimately unsuccessful in getting
the patch mergeable I spent quite a bit of time splitting it up into a
logical patch-series for sane review and development. I am quite annoyed
that it was simply flattened back into an unreviewable, hard-to-follow
blob and committed in that form.
It's not like development on a patch series is difficult. You commit
small fixes and changes, then you 'git rebase -i' and reorder them to
apply to the appropriate changesets. Or you can do a 'rebase -i' and in
'e'dit mode make amendments to individual commits. Or you can commit
'fixup!'s that get auto-squashed.
This is part of my grumbling about the use of git like it's still CVS.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
