Re: git: uh-oh

Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

Hm, I see.

> 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.

If we can set it to a value different from any actual committer name,
that would be a good thing to do.

regards, tom lane