>> Currently the main project still requires a context patch as well
>
> Good point. I'll see if I can dig up the discussion on the main
> project's list and argue against following that here ;) (or maybe the
> discussion will change my mind)--I think a rebased pull request
> (squashed to a single changeset, if appropriate) is essentially a
> fancier context patch.
A post-mortem from Josh Berkus [1] and a blog post from Magnus
Hagander [2] seem to be the clearest in summing this up. As far as I
can tell, the reason the main project requires patches was to change
the *process* as little as possible in the course of changing the VCS
plumbing. There's certainly value in that (especially for a large
project and not everyone chomping at the bit to switch workflows).
Git-empowered (for lack of a better term) workflows can emerge and be
standardized later, after the community is comfortable with just the
mechanics of git. I have no strong feelings regarding the authorship
metadata.
For the smaller jdbc project, I think if the committers are
comfortable accepting pull requests via github, that would make the
workflow simpler for some potential contributors. Standard patches
could of course still be accepted, for the git-averse.
[1]: http://lwn.net/Articles/409635/
[2]: http://blog.hagander.net/archives/175-PostgreSQL-now-on-git!.html
---
Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso
1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 242-3500 Main
www.truviso.com
