Re: git: uh-oh

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> If we need to do it at all. Tom's latest lookover indicates that he
> thinks it may be good the way it is, and we need some more detailed
> checks. I know Robert has said he wants to dedicate some time to doing
> such checks this week, and I'll see if I can find some time for that
> as well. If anybody else would like to help us dig through mainly the
> backbranches - with focus on branchpoints and taggings - to look for
> any kind of "weird stuff" (meaning anything that's not a straight
> commit), then please do so and let us know your results!

So far I've found a couple of minor issues by comparing 'git log
master' on the current, incremental conversion with the
git-migration-test repo (incidentally, what happened to discipline in
naming these repos?).

1. The new conversion seems to have stolen the apostrophe from "D'Arcy
J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>", rendering him "DArcy J.M. Cain
<darcy(at)druid(dot)net>".

2. Any non-ASCII characters in, for example, contributor's names show
up differently in the two repos. Generally, the original repo is OK
and the new repo is garbled; although I found one very old example
that went the other way.

There are also a number of commits that differ in order between the
two repos, and an even larger number where commits are duplicated or
merged in one repository relative to the other. So far, all the
examples I've checked have appeared to be saner in the new repository
than in the old one, but I have not done a full audit.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company