Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm still not sure who is going to take responsibility for fixing the
> git tree we have now. I don't think it's going to work for us to
> leave it broken until we're ready to do "the cutover", and then do one
> monolithic move. If the tools we're using to do the import now have
> broken our tree, then we need to fix it, and them. Ideally I'd like
> to get a bi-directional conversion working, so that committers could
> commit via either CVS or GIT during the transition, but I'm not sure
> whether that's feasible.

I fear the latter is probably pie in the sky, unfortunately --- to take
just one minor point, which commit timestamp is authoritative? I think
we will have to make a clean cutover from "CVS is authoritative" to
"CVS is dead and git is authoritative", and do a fresh repository
conversion at that instant. What we should be doing to get prepared for
that is testing various conversion tools to see which one gives us the
best conversion. And fixing anything in the CVS repository that is
preventing getting a sane conversion.

The existing git mirror is an unofficial service and is not going to be
the basis of the future authoritative repository. Folks who have cloned
it will have to re-clone. Sorry about that, but maintaining continuity
with that repository is just too far down the list of priorities
... especially when we already know it's broken.

I am hoping that git's cvs server emulation is complete enough that you
can commit through it --- anybody know? But that will be just a
stopgap.

BTW, can anyone comment on whether and how we can maintain the current
split between master repository (that's not even accessible to
non-committers) and a public mirror? If only from a standpoint of
security paranoia, I'd rather like to preserve that split, but I don't
know how well git will play with it.

regards, tom lane