Re: Commitfest problems

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Cheers,

Jeff