public inbox for rhdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* rh-postgresql in Taroon
@ 2003-09-11  2:58 Peter Bowen
  2003-09-11 13:38 ` Fernando Nasser
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Peter Bowen @ 2003-09-11  2:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rhdb

The rh-pgsql.patch in rh-postgresql-7.3.4-2.src.rpm in almost 175,000
lines long.  It appears much of this patch simply makes changes to
CVS/RCS keyword lines.  Has there been any thought of trying to break
this patch out into individual patches, similar to other patches to
packages?

Thanks.
Peter

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: rh-postgresql in Taroon
  2003-09-11  2:58 rh-postgresql in Taroon Peter Bowen
@ 2003-09-11 13:38 ` Fernando Nasser
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Fernando Nasser @ 2003-09-11 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Bowen; +Cc: rhdb

Peter Bowen wrote:> The rh-pgsql.patch in rh-postgresql-7.3.4-2.src.rpm in 
almost 175,000
> lines long.  It appears much of this patch simply makes changes to
> CVS/RCS keyword lines.  Has there been any thought of trying to break
> this patch out into individual patches, similar to other patches to
> packages?
> 

Hi Peter,

We maintain, test and release our own version of the PostgreSQL database (thus 
the 'rh-' prefix).  Our version lives in a CVS repository where development 
occurs, merges between changes in the community version are checked in, 
conflicts solved, etc.

The big patch represents what is different between the Red Hat Edition of 
PostgreSQL and the community release and obtained by a diff of their tar ball 
and of our release branch.

As the CVS repositories are different, the keyword lines differ.  We did attempt 
to eliminate those with patterns for analysis but that is not safe enough for 
production purposes (the patterns are not *that* specific).

We could try to find a point where the changes are at minimum, create a diff, 
and from that point on collect a numbered set of additional patches.  However, a 
patch would have to be generated for every check in, for every merge, etc.  It 
would require some tight control and frequently verification that the sum of 
patches indeed produces the release branch tip etc.  And I forgot to mention 
that we may have development branches for specific projects.  We just don't have 
the man-power for implementing this level of control in a reliable way.

An alternative would be to just use our release branch sources with no patches. 
  Would that be preferable?

Regards,
Fernando



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-11 13:38 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-11  2:58 rh-postgresql in Taroon Peter Bowen
2003-09-11 13:38 ` Fernando Nasser

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).