On 20/08/10 19:54, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
>>> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
>>> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual commit message and not just another
>>> fixed one..
>>
>> If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
>> problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
>> it will believe that a file added on a branch had been there since
>> the branch forked off, not just as of the time it got added.
Not since the branch forked off, but rather it will believe the file
added to the branch from the moment it was added to trunk - the issue is
actually in the cvs repository too - were you to ask CVS for the state
of the branch at the relevant time, you'd see the extra file there too.
In the specific case we've been looking at so far, the file is only
appearing less than a minute prematurely.
>> Now, I would think that your tests of file contents as of the various
>> release tags should have caught extra files, so maybe I'm
>> misunderstanding.
>
> I haven't been able to complete that test on the repo converted by the
> new version yet, because the repo Max prepared for us had the keyword
> problem. The other process is still running.
Would it help at all for you to send me the options file and related
file so I can produce a repository converted as you are expecting?
Max.
