On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> writes:
>> * Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> [090602 10:23]:
>>> You consider it a mess, I consider it a better and more valid
>>> representation of the mess that CVS is.
>
>> So much better that it makes the history as useless as CVS... I think
>> one of the reasons people are wanting tomove from CVS to git is that it
>> makes things *better*...
>
> FWIW, the tool that I customarily use (cvs2cl) considers commits on
> different branches to be "the same" if they have the same commit message
> and occur sufficiently close together (within a few minutes). My
> committing habits have been designed around that behavior for years,
> and I believe other PG committers have been doing likewise.
Interesting. I was wondering why all your commit messages always show
up simultaneously for all the back branches.
> I would consider a git conversion to be less useful to me, not more,
> if it insists on showing me such cases as separate commits --- and if
> it then adds useless "merge" messages on top of that, I'd start to get
> seriously annoyed.
There's no help for them being separate commits, but I agree that
useless merge commits are a bad thing. There are plenty of ways to
avoid that, though; I've been using git cherry-pick a lot recently,
and I think git rebase --onto also has some potential.
...Robert