Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Atira Odhner <aodhner@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Certainly.  We did mention the dependency in the email. Would it be better
> to mention it in the patch name?

I think the problem was that the way you phrased it, it sounded
optional ("an updated patch which does not include adding that test
helper in case you apply the show-tables patch first"). I think a
clear "This patch is dependent on patch Foo" would suffice.

> Is there a better way for us to manage
> these changes? On other open source projects, I've seen github mirrors set
> up so that changes can be pulled in like branches rather then as patch
> applies. That would have avoided this situation since the parent commit
> would be pulled in with the same SHA from either pull request branch and git
> would not see it as a conflict.
>
> I'm rather new to dealing with patch files like this so I would love some
> tips.

The Postgres project in general is quite conservative and stuck in
it's ways about how things are done (which is usually a good thing
considering you trust your data to the resulting code). We're used to
dealing with larger patchsets via the mailing list - typically as long
as you're clear about any dependencies, it shouldn't be a problem.
Some of us use tools like PyCharms for handling patches and helping
with reviews etc. which I guess replaces most, if not all of the
GitHub functionality over plain git.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company