Tom Lane wrote:
> Theo Schlossnagle <jesus@omniti.com> 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
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/