Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41BF633917 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:51:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35625-03 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:51:12 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-bw0-f211.google.com (mail-bw0-f211.google.com [209.85.218.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A7F6338A8 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:51:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so34727bwz.19 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v1u3VbbOOIeesge81ht2rw/HQxeVLx2Q1cxhFRZGCeQ=; b=gin0a08IuZzkHMdW+b8lnODanHQEoHzAzyUl0st9t+RbBdRDhZ+q/Av9Q9Y/smuuOJ 3cjR/U0RiDkKTWpwMLHhQM6b8q5cDFq1bWHRMkS9ImMzeAG9ZjsA8mSlOXmlH/KsYfaK KOWhSDLmgCDmWh5vJXPLnDEMKu0uicGEclP9Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QJrtWuKrcAdX/qGivEF5kK0fP65KWDDm6svWjfu/lAUwAJLvOqiYfzVlfT6/MfFxGS tKtZ+7YGut1rrXUvhnHrzDicRAH1hr5RR/X0YvZD8q/hbBIyfXROljglWqj1eaAZnHiN z9fMU+sviRk6rT4q69zHD6V5dKSy5ScTjV730= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.55.1 with SMTP id s1mr954414bkg.132.1244040369192; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20090526144812.GC15213@yugib.highrise.ca> <20090602162333.369974jcc3jpn3dx@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090602180702.15986cp384yo3l7q@mail.bluegap.ch> <20090603131004.12934iyrr4f7rlsc@mail.bluegap.ch> <4136ffa0906030508i2971790dk54a8203ee03ed196@mail.gmail.com> <4A266A56.2020703@anarazel.de> <4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:46:08 -0400 Message-ID: <603c8f070906030746u337c05a2pac6d323e2ae0403d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up From: Robert Haas To: Marko Kreen Cc: Greg Stark , Andres Freund , Markus Wanner , Aidan Van Dyk , Heikki Linnakangas , Magnus Hagander , Andrew Dunstan , PostgreSQL-development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.14 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.140 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200906/310 X-Sequence-Number: 139365 On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Marko Kreen wrote: > Various scenarios with git cherry-pick and similar tools would still > result in duplicate commits, so we would need a git log post-processor > anyway if we want to somehow group them together for eg. weekly commit > summary. =A0And such post-processor would work on old history too. > > Maybe that's better direction to work on, than to potentially risk in > messy history in GIT? I think it is. cherry-picking seems like a much better way of back-patching than merging, so putting a lot of effort into making merges "work" doesn't seem like a good expenditure of effort. It seems pretty clear that searching through the histories of each branch for duplicate commit messages and producing a unified report is pretty straightforward if we assume that the commit messages are byte-for-byte identical (or even modulo whitespace changes). But I wonder if it would make more sense to include some kind of metadata in the commit message (or some other property of the commit? does git support that?) to make it not depend on that. I suppose Tom et. al. like the way they do it now, so maybe we should just stick with text comparison, but it seems a bit awkward to me. ...Robert