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?
Perhaps it is just my inexperience with it, but I find the way that mediawiki, for example, uses git to be utterly baffling. The git log is bloated with the same change being listed multiple times, at least once as a commit and again as a merge. If your suggestion would be to go in that direction, I don't think that would be an improvement.
