On 10/24/07, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> >
> > > I'd rather encourage people to work in an incremental,
> > > not-so-big-bang fashion. Obviously one of the requirements for
> > > that will be quicker review turnaround and commit, so that there's
> > > time to build on a previous patch...
> >
> > I'll second that. It's awfully hard to work in isolation building a
> > larger and larger patch for months without being sure that you're
> > even on the right track...
+1. I think use of branches would be a big improvement.
>
> It would be much easier with a distributed SCM system because that way
> the process of checking patch integration would be branching and
> merging, these being cheap and simple operations in DSCMs like git,
> where it's pretty nearly impossibly hard with CVS.
It would be much easier with any modern SCM system at all, distributed
or not. I've been using feature branches in Subversion for a couple
years now and it's been a pleasure.
I'm not trying to derail the discussion into a SCM jihad or anything,
just pointing out that any move *away* from CVS, in any direction, is
a good move.