Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Date: 2009-06-03 14:18:10
Message-ID: 4A268622.90608@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure whether we should mark the old branches getting merges
>>> down or the new branches getting merged up. I suspect I'm missing
>>> something but I don't see any reason one is better than the other.
>> If you go from older to newer, the automatic merge algorithms have a
>> better chance of doing something smart since they can track previous
>> changes. At least I think that's how it works.
>>
>> But I think for most of the changes it wouldn't make a huge difference,
>> though - manual merging would be needed anyway.
>
> In practice, isn't it more likely that you would develop the change on
> the newest branch and then try to back-port it? However you do the
> import, you're going to want to do subsequent things the same way.

That's definitely the order in which *I* work, and I think that's how
most others do it as well.

--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2009-06-03 14:20:24 Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-06-03 14:17:06 Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up