Le 21/07/2010 09:53, Dave Page a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
My preference would be to stick to a style where we identify the
committer using the author tag and note the patch author, reviewers,
whether the committer made changes, etc. in
Robert Haas wrote:
If git had a place to store all the information we care about, that
would be fine...
There's no reviewer header, and there's no concept that a patch
might have come from the author (or perhaps multiple authors), but
then have been adjusted by one or more reviewers and
On lör, 2010-07-24 at 07:02 -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
Instead of squashing every patch into a single commit, what if it got
squashed into a perhaps 3 separate commits -- one as submitted, one
as reviewed, and one as re-written by the committer. History stays
linear; and you keep the most
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On lör, 2010-07-24 at 07:02 -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
Instead of squashing every patch into a single commit, what if it got
squashed into a perhaps 3 separate commits -- one as submitted, one
as reviewed, and one as re-written by the committer. History stays
linear;
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 13:48 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yeah. Also, please bear in mind that our explicit aim here is to make
this change with a minimal disruption to existing work flows. So to all
those people who want to say Look, you can now do all these cool
things my answer is
* Robert Haas:
1. Inability to cleanly and easily (and programatically) identify who
committed what. With CVS, the author of a revision is the person who
committed it, period. With git, the author string can be set to
anything the person typing 'git commit' feels like.
It's even more
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
My preference would be to stick to a style where we identify the
committer using the author tag and note the patch author, reviewers,
whether the committer made changes, etc. in the commit message. A
single author field
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 02:28, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, I had looked forward to actually putting the real author into the
author field.
What if there's more than one?
At 2010-07-20 14:34:20 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is also a committer field, but that doesn't always
appear and I'm not clear on how it works.
There is always a committer field, and it is set sensibly as long as the
committer has user.name and user.email set correctly
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@toroid.org wrote:
My preference would be to stick to a style where we identify the
committer using the author tag and note the patch author, reviewers,
whether the committer made changes, etc. in the commit message.
An aside: as a patch
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:46, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@toroid.org wrote:
At 2010-07-20 14:34:20 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to make sure that I don't accidentally push the last three of
those to the authoritative server...
By default (at least with a recent git), git push will
At 2010-07-21 12:55:55 +0200, mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We are not changing the workflow, just the tool.
OK, but I don't see why accidental merge commits need to be considered
antisocial, and banned or rebased away. Who cares if they exist? They
don't change anything you need to do to pull,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 13:05, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@toroid.org wrote:
At 2010-07-21 12:55:55 +0200, mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We are not changing the workflow, just the tool.
OK, but I don't see why accidental merge commits need to be considered
antisocial, and banned or rebased away. Who
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:34:20 -0400
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some concerns related to the upcoming conversion to git and how
we're going to avoid having things get messy as people start using the
new repository.
Here's a few responses from the point of view of somebody
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
1. Inability to cleanly and easily (and programatically) identify who
committed what.
No, git tracks committer information separately, and it's easily
accessible. Dig into the grungy details of git-log and you'll see
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
3. Merge commits. I believe that we have consensus that commits
should always be done as a squash, so that the history of all of our
branches is linear. But it seems to me that someone could
accidentally push a merge commit, either because they forgot to squash
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié jul 21 15:11:41 -0400 2010:
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
That seems like a terrible idea to me - why would you destroy history?
Obviously I've missed a discussion here. But, the first time somebody
wants to use bisect to pinpoint a
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:11:41 -0400
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
We have a clear idea of what should be part of the public history
contained in the authoritative repo and what should be history that is
private to the developer/tester/committer. We don't want to pollute the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 20:34, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some concerns related to the upcoming conversion to git and how
we're going to avoid having things get messy as people start using the
new repository. git has a lot more flexibility and power than CVS,
and I'm
On tis, 2010-07-20 at 14:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Right now, it's easy to find all the commits by a particular
committer, and it's easy to see who committed a particular patch, and
the number of distinct committers is pretty small. I'd hate to give
that up.
git log | grep '^Author' |
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 20:34, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some concerns related to the upcoming conversion to git and how
we're going to avoid having things get messy as people start using the
new
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, I had looked forward to actually putting the real author into the
author field.
What if there's more than one? What if you make changes yourself?
How will you credit the reviewer?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
Robert Haas wrote:
I have some concerns related to the upcoming conversion to git and how
we're going to avoid having things get messy as people start using the
new repository. git has a lot more flexibility and power than CVS,
and I'm worried that it would be easy, even accidentally, to
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, I had looked forward to actually putting the real author into the
author field.
What if there's more than one? What if you make changes yourself?
How will you credit the reviewer?
24 matches
Mail list logo
