On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
> Quoting "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> I think the same. If git is not able to maintain our project history
>> then it is not mature enough to be considered as our official VCS.
> As Aidan pointed out, the question is not *if* git can represent it. It's
> rather *how*. Especially WRT changes of historical information in the CVS
> repository underneath.
> Heikki is considered about having to merge WIP branches in case the (CVS and
> git repository) history changes, so he'd like to maintain the old history as
> well as the changed one. OTOH Robert doesn't want to fiddle with multiple
> histories and expects to have just exactly one history. Obviously one can't
> have both. Either one has to rebase/merge his changes onto the new history,
> or continue with multiple histories.
My understanding is that the histories of some of the branches we have
now are flat-out wrong. I don't have a problem keeping those
alongside the corrected history for ease of rebasing and porting
commits, but I don't want to punt the problem of figuring out what the
one, true, and correct history is to the user. The canonical
repository needs to provide that, and if it provides other alternative
timelines (a la Star Trek) for the convenience of people in Heikki's
situation, that's OK too, as long as they are clearly labeled as such.
I think ideally we'd phase those out and garbage collect them
eventually, but we can certainly keep them for a while.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Guillaume Smet||Date: 2009-05-28 15:50:10|
|Subject: Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-28 15:42:03|
|Subject: Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch |