| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Jargon and acronyms on this mailing list |
| Date: | 2024-09-11 12:34:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY2wkk1=vw7iTQCOVszqz0mpvGT0_Nw=fhQjk_APZyZ2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 3:54 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> There are some serious obstacles to changing it all over, though. I
> don't want to rewrite all the history, for example.
Because of the way git works, that really wouldn't be an issue. We'd
just push the tip of the master branch to main and then start
committing to main and delete master. The history wouldn't change at
all, because in git, a branch is really just a movable pointer to a
commit. The commits themselves don't know that they're part of a
branch.
A lot of things would break, naturally. We'd still all have master
branches in our local repositories and somebody might accidentally try
to push one of those branches back to the upstream repository and the
buildfarm and lots of other tooling would get confused and it would
all be a mess for a while, but the history itself would not change.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-09-11 12:36:25 | Allow CI to only run the compiler warnings task |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-09-11 12:08:23 | Re: BUG #18598: AddressSanitizer detects use after free inside json_unique_hash_match() |