At 2008-07-10 07:18:28 -0700, david@fetter.org wrote:
>
> Here are my objectives:
>
> 1. Make a repository that keeps up with CVS HEAD.
>
> 2. Allow people who are not currently committers on CVS HEAD to
> make needed changes.
OK. Then, to begin with, I think it is very important to make the
repository available via the git protocol. HTTP just won't cut it.
> It would be even nicer if we can put together a standard procedure
> for new patches. Would you be willing to write it up?
The standard procedure for new patches would be the standard procedure
for *any* patches when you use git. You have a branch that tracks the
upstream (by which I mean the Postgres source) and a branch where you
work (apply individual changes), and you merge with the origin every
now and then (either in your working branch or in another branch).
And once you've published a branch, you try never to rebase it.
The "apply individual changes" part could be done by hand (git-apply,
git-commit), or by accepting individual patches via email (git-am) or
pulling from a remote repository, or by having others push into your
repository. It doesn't matter.
> Again, git.postgresql.org is good for this and other places are not
> for reasons I've mentioned before.
I haven't seen your reasons, but frankly, I would be suspicious of them
even if git.postgresql.org filled me with confidence, which it doesn't.
It seems to lag some way behind CVS and, as Alvaro pointed out earlier,
may be missing some patches. (I realise those might have been teething
troubles, and it may even be fixed now, but I just use the mirror on
repo.or.cz instead.)
-- ams
