Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 10:51:36 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Ildus Kurbangaliev <i.kurbangaliev@gmail.com>,
	David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods
Message-ID: <20190701145136.GA8468@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPpHfdu-vBCXWpcUJExzfOXH9qsEiqZSr35uJjvF2+94=moMHw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jul-01, Alexander Korotkov wrote:

> As I get we're currently need to make high-level decision of whether
> we need this [1].  I was going to bring this topic up at last PGCon,
> but I didn't manage to attend.  Does it worth bothering Ildus with
> continuous rebasing assuming we don't have this high-level decision
> yet?

I agree that having to constantly rebase a patch that doesn't get acted
upon is a bit pointless.  I see a bit of a process problem here: if the
patch doesn't apply, it gets punted out of commitfest and reviewers
don't look at it.  This means the discussion goes unseen and no
decisions are made.  My immediate suggestion is to rebase even if other
changes are needed.  Longer-term I think it'd be useful to have patches
marked as needing "high-level decisions" that may lag behind current
master; maybe we have them provide a git commit-ID on top of which the
patch applies cleanly.

I recently found git-imerge which can make rebasing of large patch
series easier, by letting you deal with smaller conflicts one step at a
time rather than one giant conflict; it may prove useful.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services