| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-02 21:24:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4A25989D.9090603@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> The arguments that were put forward for switching to git all had to do
>> with managing patches against HEAD. AFAIK hardly anyone but the core
>> committers deals with back-patching at all, and so a structure like this
>> isn't going to affect anyone else --- you'd just ignore the back-branch
>> directory subtrees in your checkout.
>
> If we're going to do that let's just keep using CVS. I would consider
> a repository organized that way to be completely unusable; without
> doing anything the system we have now is better than that.
>
The only reason Tom sees a single line history is because he uses an
addon tool for CVS called cvs2cl: see <http://www.red-bean.com/cvs2cl/>.
It's not part of CVS, and I'm not sure how many others use it. I sure
don't. It's written in Perl, and we have one or two tolerably competent
Perl programmers around, so maybe we could produce a git equivalent?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-06-02 21:28:22 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-02 21:20:20 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |