On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.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
