Re: git: uh-oh

On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com> writes:
>>> The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
>>
>>> 1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
>>> did *not* exist.
>>
>>> 2) Later, it was added to trunk.
>>
>>> 3) Then, someone retroactively added the branch tag to the file, marking
>>> it as included in the REL8_4_STABLE branch. [This corresponds to the git
>>> changeset that Robert is questioning]
>>
>> Uh, no. We have never "retroactively added" anything to any branch.
>> I don't know enough about the innards of CVS to know what its internal
>> representation of this sort of thing is, but all that actually happened
>> here was a "cvs add" and a "cvs commit" in REL8_4_STABLE long after the
>> branch occurred. We would like the git history to look like that too.
>
> Yeah.
>
> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual commit message and not just another
> fixed one..

There is no "actual commit message" - the entire changeset is
synthesized by cvs2git to represent the addition of a branch tag to the
file - i.e. the logical equivalent of a "cvs tag -b", which has no
commit message.

Max.