On Sep 2, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Here's a completely novel idea: accept incremental patches.
>
> I don't think it's as novel as all that --- personally I've always
> preferred to tackle large projects incrementally.
I think that accepting incremental patches to a mainline is _bad_ and
that accepting them in general is good (as you have to go through
that process outside of version control sometimes anyway). Sticking
them in CVS however can get a bit messy. This is where other version
control systems that have a bit better branching and merging support
has an advantage as people can work in the repository on their
project in separate branches and pulling them all back together again
(once an overall satisfaction metric has been reached) is not
excruciatingly painful. Where am I going with this? From my
experience accepting incremental patches is a _bad_ idea unless you
have a VCS that has really makes it _easy_ to manage them. Sounds
like more work than worth on the postgres project as it is now.
Additionally, what problem is accepting incremental patches supposed
to solve?
// Theo Schlossnagle
// CTO -- http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/
// OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/
