| From: | Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 16:47:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4C866CB4.2010508@f2s.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/09/10 16:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com> writes:
>> Personally, the idea of trying to use git-filter-branch to make what
>> cvs2git currently gives you more sensible scares me silly.
>
> I'm not excited about it either --- but if Magnus wants to experiment,
> no harm trying.
>
>> Another glitch that might be worth fixing before you convert is the way
>> that cvs2git says "This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create
>> branch", when it actually means "manufactured to incrementally create
>> the branch state as it appears in CVS" - i.e. many of these commits
>> actually update an existing branch. Just as soon as I can figure out how
>> to cleanly fit that into cvs2git's structure, I want it to change the
>> word "create" to "update" in most of those commits.
>
> I thought all of those message texts were taken from the configuration
> file.
Yes, but currently these two cases both reference the same entry in the
configuration file.
Max.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-07 16:47:54 | Re: patch: tsearch - some memory diet |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-07 16:44:44 | Re: can we publish a aset interface? |