On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've
> all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I
> don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old*
> keywords. We did say we want to be able to reproduce backbranches/tags
> *identically* to what they are now, which indicates we need to leave
> the keywords in for those. That has other drawbacks, though.
>
> The way I see it, we have two ways to do it:
>
>
> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big
> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing
> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do
> now, but it also means if you do "git diff" between old versions, the
> keywords will show up there.
>
> 2) We can filter out that row during the conversion, so they look like
> they never existed.That means that if you check out 7.4.3 or whatever
> fro git, it will look like the keyword lines never existed. Since
> they're in comments it shouldn''t affect functionality, but it does mean
> that we are *not* keeping history unmodified. The advantage is that
> "git diff" on and between old revision won't include the keyword
> changes, of course.
>
> #1 is most likely the easiest one.
>
> It really comes down to which is most important - being able to get
> "easy to use diffs" between old revisions, or keeping history intact.
>
> Obviously, for all *new* commits, either one of these two methods will
> make the diffs readable. And if they are new commits, well, they are
> by definition not history that needs to be kept :-)
>
> Thoughts?
So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that
the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say
$PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. I'm all in
favor of removing them, but it would be nice if we could avoid
cluttering the old changesets with useless changes to the keyword
expansions.
Maybe I'm smoking crack, though...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
