|
»
»
« Return to Thread: [G3/Pg] Some news
Re: [G3/Pg] Some news
by Bharat Mediratta
::
Rate this Message:
Romain LE DISEZ wrote:
> currently, I'm not maintaining a fork. I work directly on the code that
> I pull.
>
> I may be wrong (I'm not used to git), but I believe it will be harder to
> maintain a fork than a set of patches. As I said in a previous mail, the
> problem of the backquotes is really blocking for me. Everytime I will
> want to merge the fork with the official code, I will have to check
> every SQL query because of the backquotes.
>
> So, for now and with my knowledge of git, I'm not interrested in
> maintaining a fork. If you had choosed to remove the backquotes from the
> code, I would have done it.
>
> But if you think that my understanding of git is wrong, just tell me.
> I'm always happy to learn something new.
As Donald says, most people who have switched to Git have been pretty
happy with it. But it depends on your workflow. Git works well in the
case where you make changes to your copy and then commit them. Then
when we make upstream changes, you just pull them in and they get
automatically merged. It sounds like perhaps in your case you're
instead maintaining a series of patches and re-applying them after every
merge. This may be harder for you in some cases (eg, if you have a
script to apply the backquotes) but it should be easier in many other
cases like when we do substantial refactors of the code and your patches
no longer apply cleanly.
My guess is that overall it would probably be easier for you, and
definitely easier for us to pull your changes back, if you use Git. It
would require you to modify your backquotes script to be idempotent, but
it would also mean that we can easily see what you have in your fork and
decide to pull that into the main repository. If you group your commits
aronud conceptual changes, we can cherrypick the ones that we want and
git will merge the two.
Either way, I'm pleased to see you continuing to push forward on Postges
and am curious to see where it leads.
-Bharat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
__[ g a l l e r y - d e v e l ]_________________________
[ list info/archive --> http://gallery.sf.net/lists.php ]
[ gallery info/FAQ/download --> http://gallery.sf.net ]
> currently, I'm not maintaining a fork. I work directly on the code that
> I pull.
>
> I may be wrong (I'm not used to git), but I believe it will be harder to
> maintain a fork than a set of patches. As I said in a previous mail, the
> problem of the backquotes is really blocking for me. Everytime I will
> want to merge the fork with the official code, I will have to check
> every SQL query because of the backquotes.
>
> So, for now and with my knowledge of git, I'm not interrested in
> maintaining a fork. If you had choosed to remove the backquotes from the
> code, I would have done it.
>
> But if you think that my understanding of git is wrong, just tell me.
> I'm always happy to learn something new.
As Donald says, most people who have switched to Git have been pretty
happy with it. But it depends on your workflow. Git works well in the
case where you make changes to your copy and then commit them. Then
when we make upstream changes, you just pull them in and they get
automatically merged. It sounds like perhaps in your case you're
instead maintaining a series of patches and re-applying them after every
merge. This may be harder for you in some cases (eg, if you have a
script to apply the backquotes) but it should be easier in many other
cases like when we do substantial refactors of the code and your patches
no longer apply cleanly.
My guess is that overall it would probably be easier for you, and
definitely easier for us to pull your changes back, if you use Git. It
would require you to modify your backquotes script to be idempotent, but
it would also mean that we can easily see what you have in your fork and
decide to pull that into the main repository. If you group your commits
aronud conceptual changes, we can cherrypick the ones that we want and
git will merge the two.
Either way, I'm pleased to see you continuing to push forward on Postges
and am curious to see where it leads.
-Bharat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
__[ g a l l e r y - d e v e l ]_________________________
[ list info/archive --> http://gallery.sf.net/lists.php ]
[ gallery info/FAQ/download --> http://gallery.sf.net ]
« Return to Thread: [G3/Pg] Some news
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
