Re: git: uh-oh

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: git: uh-oh
Date: 2010-08-20 18:52:46
Message-ID: 24652.1282330366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> 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..

If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
it will believe that a file added on a branch had been there since
the branch forked off, not just as of the time it got added.

Now, I would think that your tests of file contents as of the various
release tags should have caught extra files, so maybe I'm
misunderstanding.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-08-20 18:54:28 Re: git: uh-oh
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-20 18:48:22 Re: Deadlock bug