Re: git: uh-oh

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hmm.  Some further looking in the git log output shows that that
> "manufactured commit" is actually the ONLY commit shown as being a
> predecessor of REL8_4_3.  Everything else after 8.4.2 was tagged is
> shown as reached from refs/tags/REL8_4_4.  This is at the least pretty
> weird, and I have to suppose it's the manufactured commit causing it.
> It does appear to agree with your explanation: the "8.4.3" state is
> not part of the branch's main evolution, but is a little side branch
> all by itself.

Yep, that's what it is.

>> The effect of all of this is that if someone checks out a git commit
>> between 2010-02-28 and 2010-05-13, it.po will be there, even though
>> file didn't exist on that CVS branch at that time.
>
> Yeah, that's what it's doing for me.
>
>> Max's contention
>> seems to be that this is a CVS problem rather than a cvs2git problem.
>
> No doubt.  However, the facts on the ground are that it.po is provably
> not there in REL8_4_0, REL8_4_1, REL8_4_2, or REL8_4_3, and is there in
> REL8_4_4, and that no commit on the branch touched it before 2010-05-13
> (just before 8.4.4).  I will be interested to see the argument why
> cvs2git should consider the sanest translation of these facts to involve
> adding it.po to the branch after 8.4.2 and removing it again before
> 8.4.3.

Well, as Max says downthread, cvs -r REL8_4_STABLE -d
INTERMEDIATE_DATE apparently shows the file as being there, which is a
fairly good argument for his position. I think it's pretty amusing
that on this of all projects, where we regularly complain to people
about not updating to the latest minor release, we are six minor
releases out of date

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company