User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Merge Commits

Merge Commits

Posted Oct 12, 2010 19:48 UTC (Tue) by dmk (subscriber, #50141)
In reply to: Merge Commits by mingo
Parent article: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition

Give them time. They first have to de-cvs themselves...


(Log in to post comments)

Merge Commits

Posted Oct 12, 2010 19:52 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

That's my impression too, after having questioned this on their mailing list a couple months or so ago. I think it's mostly a matter of not wanting to change too many things at once. The tool change is now done; one assume that the workflow changes will come in their own time.

Merge Commits

Posted Oct 13, 2010 2:54 UTC (Wed) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

Heck, I *like* it when my RDBMS developers are super-conservative and risk-averse...

Merge Commits

Posted Oct 13, 2010 6:46 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]

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! :-)

Merge Commits

Posted Oct 15, 2010 7:22 UTC (Fri) by dark (guest, #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'.

Merge Commits

Posted Oct 13, 2010 2:32 UTC (Wed) by yarikoptic (subscriber, #36795) [Link]

Yeap... and then some time they would discover

git diff branch1...branch2
and
git log branch1..branch2

and why those two of the "same kind" whenever

git diff branch1..branch2
git log branch1..branch2

are not quite brothers ;-)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds