Tom Lane wrote: > Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > >> And remember the warning I gave that my conversion is *not* a direct CVS > >> import - I intentionally *unexpand* all Keywords before stuffing them > >> into GIT so that merging and branching can ignore all the Keyword > >> conflicts... > > > My import is unexpanding those as well to support rebasing and merging > > better. > > Um ... why do either of you feel there's an issue there? > > We switched over to $PostgreSQL$ a few years ago specifically to avoid > creating merge problems for downstream repositories. If there are any > other keyword expansions left in the source text I'd vote to remove > them. If you have a problem with $PostgreSQL$, why?
One weird thing I noticed some time ago is that we have an $Id$ (or was it $Header$? I don't remember) somewhere, which was supposed to be from the upstream repo where we got the file from, but it was being expanded to our local version to the file. We _also_ have the $PostgreSQL$ tag in there which carries the same info. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
