Re: git: uh-oh

On 07/09/10 16:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher <maxb@f2s.com> writes:
>> Personally, the idea of trying to use git-filter-branch to make what
>> cvs2git currently gives you more sensible scares me silly.
> 
> I'm not excited about it either --- but if Magnus wants to experiment,
> no harm trying.
> 
>> Another glitch that might be worth fixing before you convert is the way
>> that cvs2git says "This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create
>> branch", when it actually means "manufactured to incrementally create
>> the branch state as it appears in CVS" - i.e. many of these commits
>> actually update an existing branch. Just as soon as I can figure out how
>> to cleanly fit that into cvs2git's structure, I want it to change the
>> word "create" to "update" in most of those commits.
> 
> I thought all of those message texts were taken from the configuration
> file.

Yes, but currently these two cases both reference the same entry in the
configuration file.

Max.