Tom Lane wrote:
> Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> >> And remember the warning I gave that my conversion is *not* a direct CVS
> >> import - I intentionally *unexpand* all Keywords before stuffing them
> >> into GIT so that merging and branching can ignore all the Keyword
> >> conflicts... 
> > My import is unexpanding those as well to support rebasing and merging
> > better.
> Um ... why do either of you feel there's an issue there?
> We switched over to $PostgreSQL$ a few years ago specifically to avoid
> creating merge problems for downstream repositories.  If there are any
> other keyword expansions left in the source text I'd vote to remove
> them.  If you have a problem with $PostgreSQL$, why?

One weird thing I noticed some time ago is that we have an $Id$ (or was
it $Header$? I don't remember) somewhere, which was supposed to be from
the upstream repo where we got the file from, but it was being expanded
to our local version to the file.  We _also_ have the $PostgreSQL$ tag
in there which carries the same info.

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to