On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 04:55, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote:
> (I'm not sure I should piping up here, so feel free to ignore, but
> perhaps I have something small to offer. I've been following the list
> for a while, but try to keep my mouth shut.)
Meh. All constructive input is welcome!
> On 13/11/2009 3:07 AM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>
>> * Distributed revision control as standard for the project
>
> This would also make it a lot easier to track in-progress work on
> particular features of interest, allowing interested users to help with
> advance testing of early versions of major feature work. Chasing patches
> on a mailing list is not an attractive way to try to keep up with
> someone's in-progress work, and is demotivating to people interested in
> testing that work. Think: HOT, warm standby, etc.
>
> It also helps with the issue where a patch is posted, followed by short
> thread of corrections and changes you have to manually apply to reach
> (you hope) the same codebase others are testing. Sure, sometimes a
> follow-up patch is posted with the changes, but often not.
This is probably most important for large patches, but the line where
it becomes useful is very fuzzy. I think it's helpful at a much lower
complexity level than most people realize.
I think we should encourage more poeple to use this. How can we do that?
Perhaps we can put an encouragement in the description how to submit a patch?
How about we add specific feature(s) about tihs to the commitfest
management tool? Like the possibility to directly link a git
repo/branch with the patch?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/