Robert Haas wrote: >>> 2. Start using more git... >> This is a red herring, unless your proposal also includes making the >> master CVS^H^H^Hgit repository world-writable. The complaint I have >> about people posting URLs is that there's no stable archive of what the >> patches really were, and just because it came out of someone's local git >> repository doesn't help that. > > No, git really does help with this. ... > git IS a stable archive of what the patches really were.
Sorry to re-ignite the flame war, but this is the *perfect* example of the singlemost compelling advantage git over cvs. All of Simon's history remains visible in git on his branch. Better - any patches submitted to Simon by code reviewers that Simon accepts (pulls) into his branch - can also be seen on branches off of Simon's branch with the complete history of where they came from. When/if the patch eventually gets accepted into the master, as as much (or as little, thanks to git-rebase) of the history of that branch can be pulled along with it; as can be seen with the major merges of linux branches here: http://repo.or.cz/git-browser/by-commit.html?r=linux-2.6.git There's no need for the master git to be world-writable. The few with write access choose exactly how much history from Simon's branch (and from the code review's branches) they want to merge in when they pull&merge from his branch. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
