From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:13:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2684FC.2070006@hagander.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090526144812.GC15213@yugib.highrise.ca>
<20090602134831.186767ksvmsgj8gf@mail.bluegap.ch>
<e51f66da0906020546l578e56c8m52f5a6e10760eaf9@mail.gmail.com>
<20090602162333.369974jcc3jpn3dx@mail.bluegap.ch>
<e51f66da0906020834q7e6e3401jf77f40f9924bbace@mail.gmail.com>
<20090602180702.15986cp384yo3l7q@mail.bluegap.ch>
<e51f66da0906020917m274debd5u3288d6d56b62daf7@mail.gmail.com>
<20090603131004.12934iyrr4f7rlsc@mail.bluegap.ch>
<4136ffa0906030508i2971790dk54a8203ee03ed196@mail.gmail.com>
<4A266A56.2020703@anarazel.de>
<4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com>
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> 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.
Right, if it adds additional metadata that lets the tools do their magic
better, and it's still easy to filter out, I don't see a downside.
> 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.
Just to be clear, not just Tom. All committers. I was told to do that
right after my first backpatch which *didn't* do it :-)
So it's an established project practice. That has other advantages as
well, of course..
> 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.
If you go from older to newer, the automatic merge algorithms have a
better chance of doing something smart since they can track previous
changes. At least I think that's how it works.
But I think for most of the changes it wouldn't make a huge difference,
though - manual merging would be needed anyway.
//Magnus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: magnus@hagander.net, stark@enterprisedb.com, andres@anarazel.de, markus@bluegap.ch, markokr@gmail.com, aidan@highrise.ca, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, andrew@dunslane.net
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
In-Reply-To: <4A2684FC.2070006@hagander.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox