Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Christopher Browne
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > There are a couple of things I think should happen ASAP once the git > repository is up, but weren't mentioned in Magnus' plans: > > 1. The various .cvsignore files need to be replaced by .gitignore files. > I am not sure though whether this is a

Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Kevin Grittner" writes: > I could post my .gitignore file if you like. Yeah, let's see it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 18 August 2010 04:42, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> No, it doesn't.  There are some policy decisions to be made here, too, >> about what we wish to actually ignore.  Personally, my preference >> would be to arrange to ignore all and only *build products*, but not >> things like *.re

Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane wrote: > Can we use a single file at the top level for policy (*.o, *.so, > etc) and additional files lower down for specific exceptions > (parser/gram.c)? Yes. Just as a start, done on a rather ad hoc basis, mine is attached. If you put that at the top, current HEAD is clean, at le

Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 1. The various .cvsignore files need to be replaced by .gitignore files. >> I am not sure though whether this is a trivial conversion --- does git >> have similar default rules about ignoring .o, etc? > No, it doesn't. Th

Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane wrote: > 1. The various .cvsignore files need to be replaced by .gitignore > files. I could post my .gitignore file if you like. I'm sure it can be improved upon by others, but it gives me a clean `git status` result when it should. Probably better than nothing as a start. > * sr

Re: [HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > There are a couple of things I think should happen ASAP once the git > repository is up, but weren't mentioned in Magnus' plans: > > 1. The various .cvsignore files need to be replaced by .gitignore files. > I am not sure though whether this is a

[HACKERS] Additional git conversion steps

2010-08-17 Thread Tom Lane
There are a couple of things I think should happen ASAP once the git repository is up, but weren't mentioned in Magnus' plans: 1. The various .cvsignore files need to be replaced by .gitignore files. I am not sure though whether this is a trivial conversion --- does git have similar default rules