Re: cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 16:40, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
>>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
>>> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do
>>> now, but it also means if you do "git diff" between old versions, the
>>> keywords will show up there.
>
>> +1 for #1. Changing history and the resulting possibility of becoming
>> one's own grandfather always makes me nervous.
>
> Yeah.  One concrete problem with removing the $PostgreSQL$ lines is it
> will affect line numbering everywhere.  Yeah, it's only off-by-one, but
> there could still be confusion.

Uh, wouldn't that simply be dealt with by replacing them with an empty
line instead of removing it?

> One point that isn't completely clear from Magnus' description is
> whether we should remove the $PostgreSQL$ lines from the HEAD branch
> only, or from the still-active back branches as well.  I vote for the
> latter --- that is, if you pull a historical version of some file
> from the archives, you should see the appropriate $PostgreSQL$ line,
> but we won't have them in the source files for any future minor
> release.  The reason for this is that otherwise there will be files
> floating around that claim to be CVS version x.y.z, but actually are
> different from that, because of back-patching activity after the git
> transition.  That seems like a recipe for huge confusion in itself.

Yeah, clearly I didn't say that :-) My intention was for them to be
removed from head and all active back-branches at the time (e.g. we
don't bother with 6.x, just the platforms that are currently being
used).

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