Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

On 4 Jun 2009, at 09:11, "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
>> This is all completely irrelevant to the CVS import.
>
> To the CVS import it is, yes. After all, CVS has no notion of
> renaming files. But my example is about renaming with git *after*
> the conversion. Git *does* support renaming (to some extent).
> However, it fails as explained if you feed it with "corrupt" data
> (the corruption being the missing link between the two added files -
> after a rename, git simply has no chance of knowing it should be the
> same file).
>

Hmm. I see. I'm not sure we've ever added files to back branches
either. I'm less sure of that though.

>> I don't think
>> we've ever renamed files because CVS can't handle it cleanly.
>
> Yes, that applies to the past. But I think we *are* going to rename
> files *after* the switch, because git *can* handle it cleanly -
> given a correct import.
>
> If that defect would only affect historic information, I'd not be
> half as pestering as I am. But it's such delayed effects which might
> surprise you years after the cause, which make me nervous.
>
>> It does sound to me like we really ought to have merge commits
>> marking
>> the bug fixes in old releases as merged in the equivalent commits to
>> later branches based on Tom's commit messages.
>
> Now, I don't know how you got to that conclusion, but I absolutely
> agree ;-)
>
> Regards
>
> Markus Wanner
>