Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Markus Wanner" <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
>   
>> Note that a requirement for daggy fixes is that "the bug is fixed  
>> close to the point where it was introduced". So fixing it on the  
>> oldest stable branch that introduced a bug instead of fixing it on  
>> HEAD and then back-porting would certainly be a step into the right  
>> direction.
>>     
>
> I think it's already been made crystal clear that the people who
> actually do this work don't do it that way, and are uninterested in
> allowing their tools to force them to do it that way.  Patching from
> HEAD back works better for us for a number of reasons, the main one
> being that HEAD is the version of the code that's most "swapped into"
> our awareness.
>   


Yeah, a requirement to work from the back branch forward is quite 
unacceptable IMNSHO. It's also quite unreasonable. The tool is there to 
help, not to force an unnatural work pattern on us.


cheers

andrew