Re: git: uh-oh

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 06:09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I suspect what it's doing is attributing the branch creation to the user
>>> who makes the first commit on the branch for that file.  In general I'd
>>> expect that to give a reasonable result --- better than choosing a
>>> guaranteed-to-be-wrong constant value anyway ;-)
>
>> On the contrary, I prefer an obvious indication of "I don't know" to a
>> value that might appear to be authoritative but is really just a guess.
>>  It could be that one user copied the file verbatim to the branch and a
>> second user changed the file as part of an unrelated change.
>
> Hm, I see.
>
>> The "default default" value for these commits is "cvs2svn" (in your case
>> "cvs2git would probably be more appropriate), which I like because it
>> makes it clearer than "pgsql" that the commit was generated as part of a
>> conversion.
>
> If we can set it to a value different from any actual committer name,
> that would be a good thing to do.

I intentionally picked the "pgsql" user because AFAIK that's what
we've been previously using for "commits that aren't commits". I
figured the repository would be cleaner with just one such pseudo-user
rather than two. But it's a trivial change - it just needs a name and
an email address (which doesn't have to actually work, of course)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/