| From: | Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 23:03:07 |
| Message-ID: | 4C86C4AB.1070007@f2s.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/09/10 23:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> No doubt. However, the facts on the ground are that it.po is provably
> not there in REL8_4_0, REL8_4_1, REL8_4_2, or REL8_4_3, and is there in
> REL8_4_4, and that no commit on the branch touched it before 2010-05-13
> (just before 8.4.4). I will be interested to see the argument why
> cvs2git should consider the sanest translation of these facts to involve
> adding it.po to the branch after 8.4.2 and removing it again before
> 8.4.3.
Only that cvs2git isn't quite so smart as to take tags present on a
branch as a guideline of when to introduce files that sprung into
existence on a branch at an uncertain point. It merely operates by
breaking cyclic dependencies between the various events it observes in
the CVS repository. In this case, the "create branch REL8_4_STABLE"
operation gets broken into several pieces to fit around the actual
revisions involved.
Hmm. Now I'm speculating vaguely about how the cycle breaker could be
convinced to break branch update commits into as many pieces as
possible, instead of as few.
Max.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 23:11:22 | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-07 23:00:48 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |