Re: git: uh-oh

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
>> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
>> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual commit message and not just another
>> fixed one..
>
> 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.
>
> Now, I would think that your tests of file contents as of the various
> release tags should have caught extra files, so maybe I'm
> misunderstanding.

I haven't been able to complete that test on the repo converted by the
new version yet, because the repo Max prepared for us had the keyword
problem. The other process is still running.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/