On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:44:45AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> >> I'm not following along right now - in order to make cleanups the plan is >> >> to revert a couple commits and then redo them prettyfied? >> > >> > Yes, essentially. Given the volume of updates, this seemed neater than >> > framing those updates as in-tree incremental development. >> >> I think that's an odd way of representing this work. I tend to >> remember roughly when major things were committed even years later. An >> outright revert should represent a total back out of the original >> commit IMV. Otherwise, a git blame can be quite misleading. > > I think you're saying that "clearer git blame" is a more-important reason than > "volume of updates" for preferring an outright revert over in-tree incremental > development. Fair preference. If that's a correct reading of your message, > then we do agree on the bottom line.
Hmm. I read Peter's message as agreeing with Andres rather than with you. And I have to say I agree with Andres as well. I think it's weird to back a commit out only to put a bunch of very similar stuff back in. Even figuring out what you've actually changed here seems rather hard. I couldn't get github to give me a diff showing your changes vs. master. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
