On 12/05/2010 12:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 12/04/2010 07:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to official topic branches at some point in the future, but I think it's
prematureto speculate about whether it'd be useful here.
>> I'd need a lot of convincing if it imposed an extra burden on people
>> like Tom. The only way I could see working is if some committer took
>> ownership of the topic branch and guaranteed to keep it pretty much in
>> sync with the master branch.
> Well, allegedly this is one of the reasons we moved to git. Anybody can
> do that in their own repository, just as easily as a core committer
> could. AFAICS it's not necessary for the core repo to contain the
> branch, up until the point where it's ready to merge into master.
>
Well, ISTM that amounts to not having "official topic branches" :-) I
agree that this is supposed to be one of git's strengths (or more
exactly a strength of distributed SCM's generally). I don't really see
any great value in sanctifying a particular topic branch with some
official status.
What I would like to see is people publishing the location of
development repos so that they can be pulled from or merged, especially
for any large patch.
cheers
andrew