On Feb 22, 9:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > It's also fair to say that this is a subject about which we usually get > > much more noise from partisans of other SCM systems than from the > > relatively small number of people who actually have to maintain the > > postgresql code. (As Tom has pointed out, our biggest pain point is the > > occasional wish to move things across directories.)
While annoying, this is something that really only a problem for the CVS maintainer (and anyone who's stuck waiting for the maintainer to shuffle stuff). I suggest that while it would be nice to solve this problem, it's more of a bonus side-effect rather than a significant benefit to changing SCMs. > For example, currently if I have a patch and somebody reviews it and > opines that I have to change foo to bar; then I resubmit the patch. How > do they find out whether I actually changed foo to bar? Currently there > are two alternatives: > > 1. trust that I did it > 2. review the whole patch again > > With a distributed SCM, I could just patch the code and commit a new > revision in my branch to just change foo to bar, and then the reviewer > can check that I truly did what he wanted. > > Another easy thing to do is to track the current HEAD in a branch of > mine. Keeping patches up to date in parallel with other developments is > easier. Alvaro's arguments above suggest a significant, ongoing pay-off for everyone who writes patches, everyone who reviews patches and everyone who has to maintain separate patches. I won't attempt to quantify this pay-off, but it looks pretty significant to me. Andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org