On Jun 2, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A back-branch-only fix would look the same except for not having any
unannotated filenames. I'm too lazy to go trolling for one just now.
God Tom, you're such a bloody slacker. Sheesh!
It's also possible to get it to produce histories that include only
the patches on particular branches.
I'm not by any means wedded to the details of this printout format;
it's
kinda ugly in fact. The point that I want to make is that I can
look at
the commit history in a summary form that just shows me the commit
message,
date/time/committer, affected file(s) and branch(es), and is not picky
about whether the changes were byte-for-byte the same in each branch
(because they hardly ever are). The project's entire commit history
for, hm, probably the last ten years is specifically designed to be
able to get this type of report out of the repository, and we're going
to be pretty seriously unhappy if git is not able to replicate this
functionality.
I should think that it'd be pretty damned easy to generate such a
report from a Git repository's log. `git log` is extremely powerful,
and provides a lot of interfaces for hooking things in and sorting.
It's eminently do-able.
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
