Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists

Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >  > I think it would be helpful for us to provide an infrastructure where
> >  > people who don't run their own servers to store their patches at a
> >  > stable URL where they can keep updating the content.  I did that with
> >  > the psql wrap patch and it helped me.
> >
> >  Actually, I find that that is a truly awful habit and I wish that people
> >  would *not* do it that way.  There are two reasons why not:
> >
> >  * no permanent archive of the submitted patch
> >
> 
> Yes.  I can see how posting a URL to a patch would be convenient, but
> having the permanent record of the patch as submitted is important.
> 
> What about uploading patches to the wiki?  That way we have the
> permanent record (change history), as well as the single authoritative
> location for fetching the latest version.

Right, I was assuming once the patch was uploaded it would be to our
infrastructure and would be permanent.

> >  * reviewer won't know if the submitter changes the patch after he
> >  downloads a copy, and in fact nobody will ever know unless the submitter
> >  takes the time to compare the eventual commit to what he thinks the
> >  patch is
> >
> 
> Well, as long as you send another message to the lists saying "I've
> uploaded a new version of the patch, that URL again is <>".  If you
> just silently update the patch without telling anybody you're bound to
> run into problems.

Yep.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +