Re: Commitfest problems

On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended
> to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like
> continuous integration.

I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying
assumptions that're being made in this discussion:

- Patches must be email attachments to a mailing list

- Changes must be committed by applying a diff

... and take a look at some of the options a git-based workflow might
offer, especially in combination with some of the tools out there that
help track working branches, run CI, etc.

Having grown used to push/pull workflows with CI integration I find the
PostgreSQL patch workflow very frustrating, especially for larger
patches. It's particularly annoying to see a patch series squashed into
a monster patch whenever it changes hands or gets rebased, because it's
being handed around as a great honking diff not a git working branch.

Is it time to stop using git like CVS?