Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>
> > All,
> >
> >> We could release "alpha" releases. But that assumes that these reviews
> >> actually result in stuff getting committed even if they're not 100%
> >> complete. I think that would be a good thing but I don't think everyone
> >> else agrees. Also, not all reviewers are committers.
> >
> > This is what I'm thinking, too. It would be a *lot* easier for the Sun
> > peformance team (and presumably others) to test performance of stuff which
> > was getting committed rather than having to hunt down *this* version of
> > *that* patch and apply it against the snapshot from *this specific date* ...
>
> Fwiw I had put together a jumbo patch for three of the patches which you were
> interested in, HOT, LDC, and GII. This was specifically for the benefit of
> users like you to get an early experience of these patches. I think it was
> actually shortly after you had reported a problem running them together which
> was blocking you from running benchmarks on them.
It would make a lot of sense to keep them in a branch of a distributed
SCMS where you can propagate stuff from mainline into the branches.
Maybe what we, developers, should do is start using a DSCM privately to
keep track of our patches and of mainline. I know some derived projects
already use one (Postgres-R?)
--
Alvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"Limítate a mirar... y algun día veras"