Re: git: uh-oh

Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> CVS does not record when a branch was created or by whom. If a git
>> commit has to be created for such events, cvs2git attributes them to a
>> configurable username, which Max has set to be "pgsql". It chooses the
>> latest possible timestamp that is consistent with other (timestamped)
>> changesets that depend on it.
>
>> Does cvs2cl do something better? If so, how?
>
> I suspect what it's doing is attributing the branch creation to the user
> who makes the first commit on the branch for that file. In general I'd
> expect that to give a reasonable result --- better than choosing a
> guaranteed-to-be-wrong constant value anyway ;-)

On the contrary, I prefer an obvious indication of "I don't know" to a
value that might appear to be authoritative but is really just a guess.
It could be that one user copied the file verbatim to the branch and a
second user changed the file as part of an unrelated change.

The "default default" value for these commits is "cvs2svn" (in your case
"cvs2git would probably be more appropriate), which I like because it
makes it clearer than "pgsql" that the commit was generated as part of a
conversion.

Michael