Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes:
> I realize in the current system (emailed patches), this would be a horrible
> pain to maintain such a branch; but perhaps some of the burden could be
> pushed down to the patch submitters (asking them to merge their own changes
> into this merged branch).
I've considered maintaining such a repository a few times and dismissed it
when I realized how much work it would be to maintain.
> And I hate bringing up the version control flame war again; but git really
> would make this easier. If all patches were on their own branches; the
> painful merges into this shared branch would be rare, as the source control
> system would remember the painful parts of the merges.
We have git repositories, I still think maintaining a merged tree with dozens
of patches would be a lot of work.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production
Tuning