Re: git: uh-oh

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> [...] The only real gripe I can find to make is that in the cases where
>> a file is added to a back branch, the "manufactured" commit is
>> invariably blamed on committer "pgsql".  Can't we arrange to blame it
>> on the person who actually added the file?  (I wonder whether this is
>> related to the fact that the same commits have made-up timestamps,
>> which we already griped about.)

> CVS does not record when a branch was created or by whom.  If a git
> commit has to be created for such events, cvs2git attributes them to a
> configurable username, which Max has set to be "pgsql".  It chooses the
> latest possible timestamp that is consistent with other (timestamped)
> changesets that depend on it.

> Does cvs2cl do something better?  If so, how?

I suspect what it's doing is attributing the branch creation to the user
who makes the first commit on the branch for that file.  In general I'd
expect that to give a reasonable result --- better than choosing a
guaranteed-to-be-wrong constant value anyway ;-)

			regards, tom lane