| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
| Date: | 2010-07-20 16:32:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4C45896302000025000339A4@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It would result in a massive merge commit and the duplication of
> the entire history.
Ah, well, if the two repositories don't share the same IDs, it a
clear no-go. Now that I think about it, it would be a bit much to
expect those to match on independent conversions from CVS.
How is this going to play out when we do the "official" conversion
to git? Will those of us on repositories based off of
git.postgresql.org be faced with similar issues, or are we using the
repo there as the base for the conversion?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-07-20 16:34:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-20 16:21:42 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-07-20 16:34:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-20 16:31:03 | Re: Explicit psqlrc |