On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 16:40, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
>>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
>>> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do
>>> now, but it also means if you do "git diff" between old versions, the
>>> keywords will show up there.
>
>> +1 for #1. Changing history and the resulting possibility of becoming
>> one's own grandfather always makes me nervous.
>
> Yeah. One concrete problem with removing the $PostgreSQL$ lines is it
> will affect line numbering everywhere. Yeah, it's only off-by-one, but
> there could still be confusion.
Uh, wouldn't that simply be dealt with by replacing them with an empty
line instead of removing it?
> One point that isn't completely clear from Magnus' description is
> whether we should remove the $PostgreSQL$ lines from the HEAD branch
> only, or from the still-active back branches as well. I vote for the
> latter --- that is, if you pull a historical version of some file
> from the archives, you should see the appropriate $PostgreSQL$ line,
> but we won't have them in the source files for any future minor
> release. The reason for this is that otherwise there will be files
> floating around that claim to be CVS version x.y.z, but actually are
> different from that, because of back-patching activity after the git
> transition. That seems like a recipe for huge confusion in itself.
Yeah, clearly I didn't say that :-) My intention was for them to be
removed from head and all active back-branches at the time (e.g. we
don't bother with 6.x, just the platforms that are currently being
used).
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/