Thread: CVS comment
Hi all, I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment for tab-complete.c revision 1.109: Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files, password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions of a read-write parent, but not vice versa. These are the reasonably noncontroversial parts of Alvaro's recent mop-up patch, plus further work on large objects to minimize use of the TopTransactionResourceOwner. but the modification on that file have noting to see with this. Is it normal ? Regards Gaetano Mendola
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:42:03PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment > for tab-complete.c revision 1.109: > > Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files, > password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions of a read-write > parent, but not vice versa. These are the reasonably noncontroversial > parts of Alvaro's recent mop-up patch, plus further work on large objects > to minimize use of the TopTransactionResourceOwner. > > but the modification on that file have noting to see with this. > > Is it normal ? Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprising at all, as minor changes go uncommented sometimes when they are surrounded by bigger changes (like the large object work). -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Por suerte hoy explotó el califont porque si no me habría muerto de aburrido" (Papelucho)
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:42:03PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > > >>I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment >>for tab-complete.c revision 1.109: >> >>Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files, >>password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions of a read-write >>parent, but not vice versa. These are the reasonably noncontroversial >>parts of Alvaro's recent mop-up patch, plus further work on large objects >>to minimize use of the TopTransactionResourceOwner. >> >>but the modification on that file have noting to see with this. >> >>Is it normal ? > > > Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to > pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment > didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprising at all, > as minor changes go uncommented sometimes when they are surrounded by > bigger changes (like the large object work). Understood. Why not comment each file separately too much work with CVS? I do not have experience with CVS ( at work I user Clearcase ) and for my personal purpose I use subversion ( any plans to migrate the CVS repository to subversion or even bitkeeper ? ). Regards Gaetano Mendola
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:34:20AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to > >pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment > >didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprising at all, > >as minor changes go uncommented sometimes when they are surrounded by > >bigger changes (like the large object work). > > Understood. Why not comment each file separately too much work with CVS? People just doesn't feel it's important ... other projects have strict guidelines regarding CVS commit message formatting, but what I have seen is in most cases useless noise. Anyone can see the real diffs when there's need. > I do not have experience with CVS ( at work I user Clearcase ) and for my > personal purpose I use subversion ( any plans to migrate the CVS repository > to subversion or even bitkeeper ? ). Subversion and arch have been mentioned, but so far there is no compelling reason to change. It'd take convincing at least a couple of core hackers to get the ball rolling ... -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "If it wasn't for my companion, I believe I'd be having the time of my life" (John Dunbar)
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:34:20AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > >>Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> >>>Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to >>>pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment >>>didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprising at all, >>>as minor changes go uncommented sometimes when they are surrounded by >>>bigger changes (like the large object work). >> >>Understood. Why not comment each file separately too much work with CVS? > > > People just doesn't feel it's important ... other projects have strict > guidelines regarding CVS commit message formatting, but what I have seen > is in most cases useless noise. Anyone can see the real diffs when > there's need. > > >>I do not have experience with CVS ( at work I user Clearcase ) and for my >>personal purpose I use subversion ( any plans to migrate the CVS repository >>to subversion or even bitkeeper ? ). > > > Subversion and arch have been mentioned, but so far there is no > compelling reason to change. It'd take convincing at least a couple of > core hackers to get the ball rolling ... Well, I think having seen what's happening at the 8.0 relase I think that committers are too overloaded and someone else have to be "promoted" to be a committers, and I believe that having betters tools can improve the process too. Regards Gaetano Mendola