On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2019-Jul-01, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > As I get we're currently need to make high-level decision of whether
> > we need this [1]. I was going to bring this topic up at last PGCon,
> > but I didn't manage to attend. Does it worth bothering Ildus with
> > continuous rebasing assuming we don't have this high-level decision
> > yet?
>
> I agree that having to constantly rebase a patch that doesn't get acted
> upon is a bit pointless. I see a bit of a process problem here: if the
> patch doesn't apply, it gets punted out of commitfest and reviewers
> don't look at it. This means the discussion goes unseen and no
> decisions are made. My immediate suggestion is to rebase even if other
> changes are needed.
OK, let's do this assuming Ildus didn't give up yet :)
> Longer-term I think it'd be useful to have patches
> marked as needing "high-level decisions" that may lag behind current
> master; maybe we have them provide a git commit-ID on top of which the
> patch applies cleanly.
+1,
Sounds like good approach for me.
> I recently found git-imerge which can make rebasing of large patch
> series easier, by letting you deal with smaller conflicts one step at a
> time rather than one giant conflict; it may prove useful.
Thank you for pointing, will try.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company