On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> writes: >> * Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> [090602 10:23]: >>> You consider it a mess, I consider it a better and more valid >>> representation of the mess that CVS is. > >> So much better that it makes the history as useless as CVS... I think >> one of the reasons people are wanting tomove from CVS to git is that it >> makes things *better*... > > FWIW, the tool that I customarily use (cvs2cl) considers commits on > different branches to be "the same" if they have the same commit message > and occur sufficiently close together (within a few minutes). My > committing habits have been designed around that behavior for years, > and I believe other PG committers have been doing likewise.
Interesting. I was wondering why all your commit messages always show up simultaneously for all the back branches. > I would consider a git conversion to be less useful to me, not more, > if it insists on showing me such cases as separate commits --- and if > it then adds useless "merge" messages on top of that, I'd start to get > seriously annoyed. There's no help for them being separate commits, but I agree that useless merge commits are a bad thing. There are plenty of ways to avoid that, though; I've been using git cherry-pick a lot recently, and I think git rebase --onto also has some potential. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
