Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: git: uh-oh

From: Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: git: uh-oh
Date: 2010-08-20 16:22:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 20/08/10 14:36, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> I believe Robert had some comments/questions as well :-)
> What Magnus means is that I'm a grumpy old developer who complains
> about everything.
> Anyway, what I noticed was that we're getting stuff like this:
> commit 586b324c255a4316d72a5757566ebe6e630df47e
> Author: cvs2git <>
> Date:   Thu May 13 16:39:49 2010 +0000
>     This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create branch 'REL8_4_STABLE'.
>     Cherrypick from master 2010-05-13 16:39:43 UTC adunstan 'Abandon the use of
>         src/pl/plperl/
> We're not getting that on EVERY back-patch, just on some of them.  I
> really just want to turn this code to detect merges and cherry-picks
> OFF altogether, so that we get the original committer and commit
> message instead off the above.  It's much easier to read if you're
> browsing the back-branch history, and it's probably easier to match up
> commits across branches, too.

The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:

1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch,
did *not* exist.

2) Later, it was added to trunk.

3) Then, someone retroactively added the branch tag to the file, marking
it as included in the REL8_4_STABLE branch. [This corresponds to the git
changeset that Robert is questioning]

4) Then, adunstan committed a change to it on the branch.

cvs2svn/git/etc seeks to faithfully represent what the result would have
been of doing a CVS checkout of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, at various
points in time, which is why this changeset is introduced.

I should also say that the autogenerated commit message is rather poor -
it should say 'update' not 'create' in this case. I'm actually looking
at fixing that.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2010-08-20 16:29:44
Subject: Re: git: uh-oh
Previous:From: Joel JacobsonDate: 2010-08-20 16:16:27
Subject: Re: Deadlock bug

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group