Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

From: "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: "Nicolas Barbier" <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Date: 2009-06-08 14:17:29
Message-ID: 20090608161729.23933argdds1usmx@mail.bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Quoting "Nicolas Barbier" <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> ISTM that back-patching

I take this to mean "back-patching by cherry picking".

> a change to a file that wasn't modified on the
> back-branch leads exactly to merging a change to a (file-wise)
> ancestor?

Regarding the file's contents - and therefore the immediately visible
result - that's correct. However, for a merge, the two ancestor
revisions are stored, where as with cherry-pinging this information is
lost (at least for git).

So, trying to merge on top of a cherry-pick, git must merge these
changes again (which might or might not work). Merging on top of
merging works just fine.

Regards

Markus Wanner

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2009-06-08 14:33:09 Re: pg_migrator issue with contrib
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-06-08 14:12:18 Re: Partial vacuum versus pg_class.reltuples