On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:08:20PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On 2017-01-03 13:02:28 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> Yeah, I was doing parallel pulls of different branches in git
> > >> via shell script, and it seems the size of this commit showed
> > >> me that doesn't work. Sorry.
> >
> > > Shouldn't you check the results of something like this before
> > > pushing? Sorry for piling on, but that seems like a quite
> > > critical step.
> >
> > Actually, my takeaway from this was "don't ever use git reset on
> > the repo".
That's actually not tenable. If we ever find something in our repo
that we don't have full rights to, especially if it's something that
would put roadblocks in front of people who'd like to make a
proprietary fork, we have to be able to expunge it, not merely paper
it over.
> > "git revert" would have been much safer. Yeah, it would have meant that
> > git blame on the 9.2 branch would have some useless noise, but how much
> > does anyone still care about that?
>
> Possibly this time, but the generic answer is a lot harder.
As above.
> Except for like Andres says, always check *everything* before
> pushing. I know I always push with -n and then do a git show on that
> resulting set of commits just to make sure it's the one I want. It
> doesn't take a lot of extra time after each commit, and it easily
> finds things like this.
Do we see a point in the future where all pushes to that repo require
a reviewer separate from the author? The cost in hassle and
aggravation is, to put it mildly, non-trivial, but it makes these
kinds of mistakes a lot harder to make.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
