Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806C9171224A for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 04:52:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from sd-17937.dedibox.fr ([88.191.100.74]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S4q83-0005rh-2B for pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:52:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.42.162] (LCaen-151-93-7-26.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.13.230.26]) by sd-17937.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9F6B13B9D0; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:52:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1331023926.3210.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: Database designer From: Guillaume Lelarge To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Dave Page , Luis Ochoa , pgadmin-hackers Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:52:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1330617986.2275.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1331020892.3210.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-1.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Pg-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Archive-Number: 201203/61 X-Sequence-Number: 20197 On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 09:32 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2012 9:23 AM, "Dave Page" wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Guillaume Lelarge > > wrote: > > > > > > On such a huge patch, it's really hard to work without commiting > some > > > parts of it. So I decided to commit each milestone of the project. > I > > > agree with you that it lacks lots of tweaking, but it's not that > bad. > > > > There are numerous basic issues (such as dialog design, and even > > labelling text) which most certainly should have been resolved prior > > to commit - they are a matter of maintaining basic standards - and > > that's not to mention that it's more or less impossible to use as > > designed on at least Mac. To quote a French friend of mine from June > > last year: "And without usability, it can't be commited in the > pgadmin > > repository." > > Meh, who cares about mac? ;) > > On a serious note, perhaps this patch was/is big enough that it > would've warranted an actual development branch in the main repo to > allow for easier testing and merging by more people while it > progresses? It won't magically solve any problems of course, but it > might be worth reconsidering the "branching policy" now that we've > used git for a while and people are more used to it? > I would be fine with it if we had people to actually test it. But we don't. Dave's complaining now but the feature is in since early september 2011, meaning he didn't test it before. And the only one I know testing it is Colin Beckingham, with a few interesting comments in late february. Having a test branch won't resolve anything. Actually, putting it in a test branch is probably the best way to forget about it. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com