Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> writes:
> * Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> [090602 10:23]:
>> You consider it a mess, I consider it a better and more valid
>> representation of the mess that CVS is.
> So much better that it makes the history as useless as CVS... I think
> one of the reasons people are wanting tomove from CVS to git is that it
> makes things *better*...
FWIW, the tool that I customarily use (cvs2cl) considers commits on
different branches to be "the same" if they have the same commit message
and occur sufficiently close together (within a few minutes). My
committing habits have been designed around that behavior for years,
and I believe other PG committers have been doing likewise.
I would consider a git conversion to be less useful to me, not more,
if it insists on showing me such cases as separate commits --- and if
it then adds useless "merge" messages on top of that, I'd start to get
seriously annoyed.
What we want here is a readable equivalent of the CVS history, not
necessarily something that is theoretically an exact equivalent.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
