On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:00:07PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea -- it just > >> makes the patch harder to read. I suggest just removing the old code > >> and putting the new code in place. (That's why we have revision > >> control.) > >> > > One thing it helps is building an old version and a new version > > for comparative testing. Otherwise, you could end up with an apples-to- > > oranges comparison. I certainly think that the final patch should not > > have it, but it is useful now for testing and comparisons. > > Yes, that's why Xiao did it that way. However, we traditionally just > submit a patch with only the changes and it's up to the person testing > to have an identical build-tree without the patch for testing. > Another reason for it is that even if you build without the define, > the patch author may have mistakenly added something outside the ifdef > which could impact testing. > > I agree with Alvaro that we should submit it as a standard change patch.
Okay, that makes sense. Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
