[HACKERS] antisocial things you can do in git (but not CVS)
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: dynamically allocating chunks from shared memory
Next: antisocial things you can do in git (but not CVS)
From: Robert Haas on 20 Jul 2010 14:34 I have some concerns related to the upcoming conversion to git and how we're going to avoid having things get messy as people start using the new repository. git has a lot more flexibility and power than CVS, and I'm worried that it would be easy, even accidentally, to screw up our history. 1. Inability to cleanly and easily (and programatically) identify who committed what. With CVS, the author of a revision is the person who committed it, period. With git, the author string can be set to anything the person typing 'git commit' feels like. I think there is also a committer field, but that doesn't always appear and I'm not clear on how it works. Also, the author field defaults to something dumb if you don't explicitly set it to a value. So I'm worried we could end up with stuff like this in the repository: Author: <rhaas(a)rhaas-laptop> Author: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> Author: Robert Haas <rhaas(a)enterprisedb.com> Author: Robert Haas <rhaas(a)some-place-i-might-hypothetically-work-in-the-future.com> Author: The Guy Who Wrote Some Patch Which Robert Haas Ended Up Committing <somerandomemail(a)somerandomdomain.whatever> Right now, it's easy to find all the commits by a particular committer, and it's easy to see who committed a particular patch, and the number of distinct committers is pretty small. I'd hate to give that up. git log | grep '^Author' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | less My preference would be to stick to a style where we identify the committer using the author tag and note the patch author, reviewers, whether the committer made changes, etc. in the commit message. A single author field doesn't feel like enough for our workflow, and having a mix of authors and committers in the author field seems like a mess. 2. Branch and tag management. In CVS, there are branches and tags in only one place: on the server. In git, you can have local branches and tags and remote branches and tags, and you can pull and push tags between servers. If I'm working on a git repository that has branches master, REL9_0_STABLE .. REL7_4_STABLE, inner_join_removal, numeric_2b, and temprelnames, I want to make sure that I don't accidentally push the last three of those to the authoritative server... but I do want to push all the others. Similarly I want to push only the corrects subset of tags (though that should be less of an issue, at least for me, as I don't usually create local tags). I'm not sure how to set this up, though. 3. Merge commits. I believe that we have consensus that commits should always be done as a "squash", so that the history of all of our branches is linear. But it seems to me that someone could accidentally push a merge commit, either because they forgot to squash locally, or because of a conflict between their local git repo's master branch and origin/master. Can we forbid this? 4. History rewriting. Under what circumstances, if any, are we OK with rebasing the master? For example, if we decide not to have merge commits, and somebody does a merge commit anyway, are we going to rebase to get rid of it? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |