From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cvs to git migration - keywords |
Date: | 2010-07-15 17:15:00 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinvUKNYn6Ujep7X5uac6CtDRmK8P4GxbOE1gaOh@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/7/10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
> > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
> > $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$.
>
>
> Really? All of them? Seems like that would have taken some intentional
> processing somewhere.
AFAIK that's what CVS actually keeps in repo, it expands keywords
when writing files out.
> If we could make the conversion work like that (rather than removing the
> whole line) it would negate my line-number-change argument, which might
> mean that files pulled from the repository would be "close enough" to
> their actual historical form that no one would mind. It's still a
> judgment call though. On balance I think I'd rather adopt the simple
> rule that historical file states in the git repository should match what
> you would have gotten from the cvs repository.
I would prefer that the diffs should match what CVS gives / what got
committed.
Sanity-checking by comparing CVS checkout with GIT checkout with
unexpanded keywords can be scripted easily enough, and is one-time
affair.
But humans want to review old diffs quite more frequently...
+1 keeping keywords, but unexpanded.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-07-15 17:16:02 | Re: SHOW TABLES |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-07-15 17:04:19 | Re: Per-column collation, proof of concept |