Tom Lane wrote:
Theo Schlossnagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Additionally, what problem is accepting incremental patches supposed to solve?


Keeping the individual patches reviewable is one useful goal.

We may be talking at cross-purposes here.  The sort of thing I think
Alvaro is imagining is something like what I did a year or two back when
I wanted to make the executor treat plan trees as read-only --- if
memory serves, I did that in three or four commits spread over a week or
two.

To second this, Alvaro is constantly beating our (cmd) other developers to do this, so I would guess that you are correct :).

I find also that this method allows someone like me, who can read C and understand good parts of it to get the gist of what is going on without trying to grok the whole thing. Large patches make it very difficult.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


--

   === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
   Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to