On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> I'm not following along right now - in order to make cleanups the plan is to >> revert a couple commits and then redo them prettyfied? > > Yes, essentially. Given the volume of updates, this seemed neater than > framing those updates as in-tree incremental development.
I think that's an odd way of representing this work. I tend to remember roughly when major things were committed even years later. An outright revert should represent a total back out of the original commit IMV. Otherwise, a git blame can be quite misleading. I can imagine questioning my recollection, even when it is accurate, if only because I don't expect this. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
