Hi,
Quoting "Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>:
> The example was not actual case from Postgres CVS history,
> but hypotetical situation without checking if it already works
> with GIT.
Of course it is a simplified example, but it resembles what could
happen i.e. to the file doc/src/sgml/generate_history.pl, which got
added from a backported patch after forking off REL8_3_STABLE.
If you create separate commits during the conversion, rename that file
on the master branch and then - for whatever reason - try to merge the
two branches, you will end up having that file twice. That's what I'm
warning about. Changes on either or both sides of the merge make the
situation worse.
> Merging between branches with GIT is fine workflow in the future.
Do you consider the above scenario a fine merge?
> My point is that we should avoid fake merges, to avoid obfuscating
> history.
Understood. It looks like I'm pretty much the only one who cares more
about merge capability than nice looking history :-(
Attached is my current options file for cvs2git, it includes requested
changes by Alvaro and additional names and emails as given by Tom
(thanks again). A current conversion with cvs2git (and with the
merges) results in a repository with exactly 0 differences against any
branch or tag symbol compared to cvs checkout -kk.
Regards
Markus Wanner