Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:44:45AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)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.