From: | Kjetil Nygård <polpot78(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Moving to git |
Date: | 2011-10-14 18:41:45 |
Message-ID: | 1318617705.18522.2.camel@kjetil.kny.im |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 11:28 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com> wrote:
> >> PS: Does it really matter if the history is a bit altered by the
> >> conversion process? As long as HEAD and the tags are the same?
> >
> > I think we can tolerate some minor discrepancies, but we do want
> >
> > 1. Diff-free HEAD, tags, and tips of branches
> > 2. A sensible-looking development history that represents more or less
> > what happened in CVS
> >
> > If we only pay attention to (1), we lose too much information, since,
> > e.g., development history can be critical in determining when a bug
> > was introduced and what releases it affects.
> >
> >> The history could be kept in a read-only cvs-repository :-)
> >
> > Or we could keep a git mirror and you submit patches that are applied
> > to the CVS repo, which you then pull into your repo through
> > git-cvsimport once they're committed. There are all sorts of technical
> > tricks we can play, but I think the goal is to minimize that, and
> > essentially have a git repo representing the entire development
> > history as if pgjdbc had been using git from day one.
> >
> > ---
> > Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso
> >
> > 1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
> > Foster City, CA 94404
> > (650) 242-3500 Main
> > www.truviso.com
> >
>
>
>
> Are we at a state where this is workable ?
I think that either my conversion (the simple one.) is good to go. It
could be nice to look at the merge-history and see if the tagging /
branching is sensible in gitx og gitk.
On the other side, I have not looked at Marko's conversion, but I
pressume that it works as well. (Or maybe better.)
Regards,
Kny
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2011-10-14 22:01:14 | Re: Moving to git |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2011-10-12 15:28:11 | Re: Moving to git |