Message-ID: <4A2684FC.2070006@hagander.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:13:16 +0200
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
CC: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>,
	Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
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>
In-Reply-To: <4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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