On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> That would suck for me. I use git log a lot to see how things have
>>> changed over time.
>
>> Indeed. Losing the history is not an acceptable option.
>
> I think the same. If git is not able to maintain our project history
> then it is not mature enough to be considered as our official VCS.
> This is not a negotiable requirement.
I think the idea is that you could choose, for example, the level of
granularity you want to keep. That could be interesting in the future
-- someone who submitted a patch (or anyone who was working in that
area) might want to keep all their intermediate commits and not just
the one big commit for the whole feature.
But it's not like we have a lot of choices for our history. Only a few
patches were maintained in a distributed vc system so far and I don't
think many people followed them. Also given the massive changes
patches have tended to get when being committed keeping the history of
the patch development seems kind of pointless.
--
greg
