On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > Greg Stark wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> "git log --no-merges" hides the actual merge commits if that is what you >>> want. >> >> Ooh! Life seems so much sweeter now! >> >> Given that we don't have to see them then I'm all for marking bug fix >> patches which were applied to multiple branches as merges. That seems >> like it would make it easier for tools like gitk or to show useful >> information analogous to the cvs2pcl info. > > Right, if it adds additional metadata that lets the tools do their magic > better, and it's still easy to filter out, I don't see a downside. > >> I'm not sure whether we should mark the old branches getting merges >> down or the new branches getting merged up. I suspect I'm missing >> something but I don't see any reason one is better than the other. > > If you go from older to newer, the automatic merge algorithms have a > better chance of doing something smart since they can track previous > changes. At least I think that's how it works. > > But I think for most of the changes it wouldn't make a huge difference, > though - manual merging would be needed anyway.
In practice, isn't it more likely that you would develop the change on the newest branch and then try to back-port it? However you do the import, you're going to want to do subsequent things the same way. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
