Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

On 6/3/09, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>  > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm not sure whether we should mark the old branches getting merges
>  >>> down or the new branches getting merged up. I suspect I'm missing
>  >>> something but I don't see any reason one is better than the other.
>  >> If you go from older to newer, the automatic merge algorithms have a
>  >> better chance of doing something smart since they can track previous
>  >> changes. At least I think that's how it works.
>  >>
>  >> But I think for most of the changes it wouldn't make a huge difference,
>  >> though - manual merging would be needed anyway.
>  >
>  > In practice, isn't it more likely that you would develop the change on
>  > the newest branch and then try to back-port it?  However you do the
>  > import, you're going to want to do subsequent things the same way.
>
>
> That's definitely the order in which *I* work, and I think that's how
>  most others do it as well.

Thats true, but it's not representable in VCS, unless you use cherry-pick,
which is just UI around patch transport.  But considering separate
local trees (with can optionally contain local per-fix branches),
it is possible to separate the fix-developement from final representation.

-- 
marko