Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I looked at doing that but it didn't seem like an improvement. �Take
>> a look at the new version and see what you think.
> I'm not really sure. I suppose I'll have to play with it for a while
> to really form a clear opinion. Clearly, knowing which minor releases
> a commit is in is a major improvement, but the whole thing is so
> heavily re-engineered from my original version that I'm not really
> sure whether there's anything else that I care about that got broken
> in the process. In particular, I'm wondering to what extent we're
> baking in branch management conventions from which we may wish to
> depart at some point in the future.
If we ever start doing things like sub-branches it's likely to need
more work, but I suggest that that would have been true anyway.
I don't believe that the current version shows a different set of
commits from the original (other than endpoint bugs...).
> I maintain that if someone else whacked around one of your commits the
> way you whacked this around, you'd bite their head off.
I apologize if I offended you. I hadn't believed that there was any
particular consensus on how this script ought to behave; I thought
it was something you'd whipped up in an hour based on my request for
something like cvs2cl, and that making it work more like that would be
uncontroversial.
regards, tom lane
