Re: git: uh-oh

* Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> [100817 15:30]:
> I lack git-fu pretty completely, but I do have the CVS logs ;-).
> It looks like some of these commits that are being ascribed to the
> REL8_3_STABLE branch were actually only committed on HEAD.  For
> instance my commit in contrib/xml2 on 28 Feb 2010 21:31:57 was
> only in HEAD.  It was back-patched a few hours later (1 Mar 3:41),
> and that's also shown here, but the HEAD commit shouldn't be.
> 
> I wonder whether the repository is completely OK and the problem
> is that this webpage isn't filtering the commits correctly.

No, that git branch is definately strange.  The commit Robert pointed
out is a merge commit.

But looking at your explanation of when similar commits with the same
message were committed, I'm guessng the "timestamp fudge factor" along
with the "look for same commit message" behaviour of Magnus's cvs2git
conversion is trying "too hard" to make "atomic" commits of non-atomic
commits.

If you use a git viewer that shows the fork/merge points, you can see
that there are lots of these little "common" commits that have been
"unified" onto multiple brances.

Magnus, can you check if you can reduce the time fudge?

a.

-- 
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.