On 6/2/09, 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.
>
> 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.
They cannot be same commits in GIT as the resulting tree is different.
You could tie them with some sort of merge commits, but doubt the
result would be worth the noise.
Also I doubt there is tool grokking such commits anyway, the merge
discussion above was for full files with exact contents appearing
in several branches.
> What we want here is a readable equivalent of the CVS history, not
> necessarily something that is theoretically an exact equivalent.
I suggest setting the goal to be simple and clear representation
of CVS history that we can make sense later, instead of revising
CVS history to look like we used some better VCS system...
--
marko