| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
| Date: | 2009-06-03 14:01:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0906030701x200bf0e4o4c77fa3239062ca5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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.
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-06-03 14:13:16 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-03 13:37:52 | Re: Locks on temp table and PREPARE |