Re: git: uh-oh

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Max Bowsher <maxb(at)f2s(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: git: uh-oh
Date: 2010-09-10 08:21:03
Message-ID: AANLkTik9CFu3R1MnH0C9HR8dXvRxtDTEF-f_xAvkazjb@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 07:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hey Magnus, what exactly was your process for verifying the file
> contents of the various release tags in the git conversion?  Did
> you check them against the published tarballs, or against what the
> CVS repository said they should be?  Because I've just found that
> this odd-looking manufactured commit:

I do:
cvs -q -d /usr/local/cvsroot export -d /opt/compare_working/cvs -r $B pgsql

followed by
git archive --format=tar $B | (cd /opt/compare_working/git && tar xf -)

and then
diff -Nr /opt/compare_working/cvs /opt/compare_working/git > /opt/diffs/$B.diff

For each branch head and tag.

I don't look at the tarballs at all.

> is there because these files have no REL7_3_5 tag according to CVS.
> Which is damn weird, because they all have tags for the preceding
> and following releases, *and they are there in the published tarball*.
>
> It looks to me like what didn't get tagged is a few complete
> directories, which means the most likely mechanism is the "cvs tag"
> operation being run in a checkout tree that lacked these subdirectories
> for some reason.  But that's just a guess; we'll probably never know
> for sure.
>
> Anyway I am now thinking that we'd better compare published tarballs to
> the CVS tags and find out what other discrepancies there are.  The
> checking we've done to verify releases in the past has always been that
> the tarballs were sane, not that the tagging was sane, so in case of any
> discrepancy I'd say the tarball should be considered authoritative.

Ouch. yeah, if the tarballs and cvs don't match, we really can't
expect the tarballs and git to match..

> I've already found one other issue: the root HISTORY and INSTALL files
> have REL7_3_10 tags and should not.  This is not entirely CVS' fault
> though: I think what happened is that Marc manually moved the
> already-applied REL7_3_10 tag when we re-did that release, and didn't
> account for the fact that I'd deleted those two files in the branch
> meanwhile.  That one is also confusing cvs2git no end.

Ouch. Yeah, moving tags is evil.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-09-10 08:23:23 Re: git: uh-oh
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2010-09-10 07:46:23 Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session