Re: git: uh-oh

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual commit message and not just another
> fixed one.. 

If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
it will believe that a file added on a branch had been there since
the branch forked off, not just as of the time it got added.

Now, I would think that your tests of file contents as of the various
release tags should have caught extra files, so maybe I'm
misunderstanding.

			regards, tom lane