* Aidan Van Dyk [100715 13:56]:
> * Marko Kreen [100715 13:49]:
>
> > Eh. I stand corrected - what it actually does is even more
> > bizarre - it stores whatever is on the disk, but then
> > expands on re-write. So:
> >
> > - r1.1 contains $Id$ in the repo.
> > - r1.2 contains $Id: 1.1$ in t
* Marko Kreen [100715 13:49]:
> Eh. I stand corrected - what it actually does is even more
> bizarre - it stores whatever is on the disk, but then
> expands on re-write. So:
>
> - r1.1 contains $Id$ in the repo.
> - r1.2 contains $Id: 1.1$ in the repo.
>
> and so on...
It's actually slightl
On 7/15/10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On 7/7/10, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Robert Haas writes:
> > > > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
> > > > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just
> say
> > > > $PostgreSQL$ ra
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 7/7/10, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
> So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
> the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
> $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$.
Really? All of the
On 7/7/10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
> > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
> > $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$.
>
>
> Really? All of them? Seems like
Hi,
On 07/07/2010 08:31 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Personally I favor leaving the expanded keywords in what we import, so
that there's an exact mapping between what's in the final CVS repo and
what's in the inital git repo, and then removing them entirely. I don't
see that having old keyword expa
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 16:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
>>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
>>> them. In this
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 20:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
>> the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
>> $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. I'm all in
>> f
Robert Haas wrote:
So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
$PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. I'm all in
favor of removing them, but it would be nice if we could avoid
clutteri
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
>> the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
>> $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$.
>
> Really? All of them
Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
>>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
>>> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do
>>> now, but it also means if you do "git diff" between
Robert Haas writes:
> So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
> the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
> $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$.
Really? All of them? Seems like that would have taken some intentional
proce
* Dave Page [100707 05:05]:
>
> +1 for #1. Changing history and the resulting possibility of becoming
> one's own grandfather always makes me nervous.
But, since we're already using CVS, our grandfather is already our
granddaughter...
I'll just point out that if you "expand" the CVS keywords in
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've
> all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I
> don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old*
> keywords. We did say we want
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One point that isn't completely clear from Magnus' description is
> whether we should remove the $PostgreSQL$ lines from the HEAD branch
> only, or from the still-active back branches as well. I vote for the
> latter --- that is, if you pull a his
Dave Page writes:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
>> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do
Magnus Hagander wrote:
In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've
all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I
don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old*
keywords. We did say we want to be able to reproduce backbranches/
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do
> now, but it also mean
In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've
all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I
don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old*
keywords. We did say we want to be able to reproduce backbranches/tags
*identically* to what
19 matches
Mail list logo
