Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75A4634812 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:01:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53405-10 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:01:22 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B9F2E632C13 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:01:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from source ([209.85.218.216]) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSiaCL5IduE2Tk+vY12YD88VhJ6yhcw70@postini.com; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:01:21 PDT Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so8700414bwz.17 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:01:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.103.194 with SMTP id l2mr577300fao.55.1244037678850; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:01:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A266A56.2020703@anarazel.de> References: <20090526144812.GC15213@yugib.highrise.ca> <20090602134831.186767ksvmsgj8gf@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090602162333.369974jcc3jpn3dx@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090602180702.15986cp384yo3l7q@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090603131004.12934iyrr4f7rlsc@mail.bluegap.ch> <4136ffa0906030508i2971790dk54a8203ee03ed196@mail.gmail.com> <4A266A56.2020703@anarazel.de> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:01:18 +0100 Message-ID: <4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up From: Greg Stark To: Andres Freund Cc: Markus Wanner , Marko Kreen , Aidan Van Dyk , Heikki Linnakangas , Magnus Hagander , Andrew Dunstan , PostgreSQL-development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200906/298 X-Sequence-Number: 139353 On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > "git log --no-merges" hides the actual merge commits if that is what you > want. Ooh! Life seems so much sweeter now! Given that we don't have to see them then I'm all for marking bug fix patches which were applied to multiple branches as merges. That seems like it would make it easier for tools like gitk or to show useful information analogous to the cvs2pcl info. Given that Tom's been intentionally marking the commits with identical commit messages we ought to be able to find *all* of them and mark them properly. That would be way better than only finding patches that are absolutely identical. I'm not sure whether we should mark the old branches getting merges down or the new branches getting merged up. I suspect I'm missing something but I don't see any reason one is better than the other. -- greg