From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: antisocial things you can do in git (but not CVS) |
Date: | 2010-07-24 10:21:23 |
Message-ID: | 4C4ABEA3.4030508@lelarge.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 21/07/2010 09:53, Dave Page a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> My preference would be to stick to a style where we identify the
>>> committer using the author tag and note the patch author, reviewers,
>>> whether the committer made changes, etc. in the commit message. A
>>> single author field doesn't feel like enough for our workflow, and
>>> having a mix of authors and committers in the author field seems like
>>> a mess.
>>
>> Well, I had looked forward to actually putting the real author into the
>> author field.
>
> I hadn't realised that was possible until Guillaume did so on his
> first commit to the new pgAdmin GIT repo. It seems to work nicely:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin3.git;a=commit;h=08e2826d90129bd4e4b3b7462bab682dd6a703e4
>
It's one of the nice things with git. So, I'm eager to use it with the
pgAdmin repo.
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Geery | 2010-07-24 10:47:32 | Re: Review: Patch for phypot - Pygmy Hippotause |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-07-24 09:44:11 | Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE |