Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Noah Misch <noah@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
themprettyfied?
 
>
> 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 can
imagine questioning my recollection, even when it is accurate, if only
because I don't expect this.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan