On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:44:45AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > 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 think you're saying that "clearer git blame" is a more-important reason than "volume of updates" for preferring an outright revert over in-tree incremental development. Fair preference. If that's a correct reading of your message, then we do agree on the bottom line. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
