Re: git: uh-oh

Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
>>> problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
>>> it will believe that a file added on a branch had been there since
>>> the branch forked off, not just as of the time it got added.

> Not since the branch forked off, but rather it will believe the file
> added to the branch from the moment it was added to trunk - the issue is
> actually in the cvs repository too - were you to ask CVS for the state
> of the branch at the relevant time, you'd see the extra file there too.

Ah. So Magnus' tests didn't catch that because he only looked at
release tag times, and none of these event pairs occurred across a
release.

> In the specific case we've been looking at so far, the file is only
> appearing less than a minute prematurely.

Hmm. I wonder whether the "anomaly" is dependent on the order in which
the cvs add's and cvs commit's are done in the two different branches.

I'm still confused as to why this results in such massive weirdness in
the generated git history, though. If it simply caused an extra commit
that adds the new file slightly earlier than the commit we think of as
adding the file, I wouldn't be complaining. It's the fact that there
are all those unrelated HEAD commits showing up in the log for a branch
that bugs me.

regards, tom lane