| |||||||||||||
Merge CommitsMerge CommitsPosted Oct 13, 2010 6:46 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)In reply to: Merge Commits by njs Parent article: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition
I have no problems with RDBMS developer being conservative and progressing slowly and meticulously. We should be careful to not base that kind of healthy conservatism on misunderstandings though - and the merge arguments seem to stem from misunderstandings of Git workflows. In any case i'd like to congratulate the PostgreSQL project for making the difficult transition to Git - i don't think they will regret it! :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Merge Commits Posted Oct 15, 2010 7:22 UTC (Fri) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] No, no, an essential part of conservatism is the assumption that new things are not yet fully understood. If they (as a project) have misunderstandings about Git workflows then that is an excellent reason to stick with their current workflows for now.
Merge Commits Posted Oct 15, 2010 7:52 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] No, no, an essential part of conservatism is the assumption that new things are not yet fully understood. If they (as a project) have misunderstandings about Git workflows then that is an excellent reason to stick with their current workflows for now. Saying that "we are sticking with our existing workflow because we don't understand the Git workflow yet" is of course fine and is a valid approach, but that is not what they did: instead they explicitly claimed things about the Git workflow which is simply not true, and justified their steps with those (incorrect) assumptions. Claiming/believing things that are not true is obviously not a productive element of 'conservativism'.
|
|||||||||||||