On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 14:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Actually yes we did. There was a bug in git-cvs that we fixed. Its is
> > talked about here:
> > Actually the work is relatively minimal as we have git infrastructure in
> > place. The larger problem is:
> >
> > What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> > Does git actually solve it?
>
> I think the problems it would solve for us are (1) emailing huge
> patches around sucks (it sucks unnecessarily because of the
> mailing-list size limit, but even if someone fixes that, it still
> sucks), (2) no need for a CVS-to-GIT conversion that may incur dirty
> reads; (3) retention of history and authorship when merging patches
> into core. It's possible that it might change our workflow in other
> ways too, but even if we got only those three things I think that
O.k. now the second part :)
Does bzr, mecurial or monotone offer the same or better solution? Bzr in
particular is in very wide use and I run into mecurial all the time.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
