| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |
| Date: | 2008-10-07 14:46:28 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070810070746mdec86f7o8721dd1a8374ae94@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>> I'm just grumpy because I can't see a way to do the
>> patch-on-patch-on-patch that I'll need to make this all work for Nov 1.
>> So big patch here we come. But that's just the way it is and I'll stop
>> honking about it.
>
> This is one of the problems that DVCSs are supposed to solve ... have
> you tried Git?
I think the other problem here is that the difficulty of getting the
patch landed increases more than linearly with its size. If it's hard
to get a patch of size X landed in one CommitFest, what are the
chances of landing on three times as large, with three times as many
changes to argue about? Getting things done in stages makes it easier
to build on earlier work without worrying that you'll be asked to go
back and redo everything.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-07 15:05:45 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-10-07 14:40:14 | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-07 15:05:45 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-07 14:37:07 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |