On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 13:42, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 28.11.2010 06:59, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> On Nov 27, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Bruce Momjian<br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Who's going to be the first to say that being git-centric can't ever be >>>>> a bad thing? ;-) >>> >>>> At least for me, referring to it that way makes finding the original >>>> patch an order of magnitude faster (git show hash). YMMV. >>> >>> [ shrug... ] You need to take the long view here. We're not working on >>> the assumption that git is the last SCM this project will ever use. >>> Even granting that it is, I don't think git hashes are adequately stable; >>> loading the code into a different repository would likely result in new >>> hashes. And AFAIK there is no mechanism that would fix hash references >>> embedded in commit log messages (or the code). >> >> Well, if we ever did want to rewrite the entire development history >> (why?) I suppose we could rewrite SHA hashes in the commit messages at >> the same time. But I think one big advantage of git (or svn, or >> probably any other post-CVS VCS) is that it has unique IDs for >> commits. Referring to them as "the commit by so-and-so on >> such-and-such a date" just on the off chance that we might someday >> decide to replace those unique IDs with another set of unique IDs >> doesn't make much sense to me. It makes things more difficult now in >> the hope that, ten years from now when we switch systems again, it'll >> be easier to use unstructured text to construct a search command to >> root through the development history than it will be to map a git >> commit id onto a commit id in the new system. That's possible, but >> it's far from obvious. We are database professionals; we ought to >> believe in the value of unique keys. > > Let's do both: "This fixes the bug introduced by the foobar patch from Sep > 12th (git commitid a2c23897bc). > > I like to see the date of the referred patch in the commit message, to get > an immediate idea of whether it was a 5-year old change or something from > the previous day. But the commitid is also nice so you can immediately > copy-paste that without reading through the old commit logs.
+1. Having the git id is very useful, and putting the date in makes it no *less* informational than what we had before, if/when we move away from git and it's hashes. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
