>> No, git really does help with this. If Simon were making his changes
>> in git and pushing them to a git branch on git.postgresql.org, you
>> would be able to see exactly what he changed and when he changed it.
>
> Well, if that's actually an archival repository then it would work.
> But wasn't I just reading something about having to wipe that repository
> and re-import the CVS history to fix various problems?
Not sure; I hope not. I think we'd be well-served by getting rid of
CVS permanently and using git for the master branch. That would
eliminate the possibility of git reading a partial commit from CVS and
any other possible issues of needing to go back and reconstruct git
things based on unexpected wankage in the CVS repository. We could
keep the list of committers exactly the same as what it is now; they'd
just be people with rights to push the master git branch rather than
rights to commit to CVS.
I am sure this would involve a fair amount of work but I think it
would be worth it, and I'd be willing to help with the doing of it. I
have resisted learning git for a while but I've come around. I'm even
switching to git for development work I do for my employer, where I'm
the only developer, because it's just so much easier to do work on a
branch and then merge it than it is with CVS or SVN.
> (In any case, the URLs I'm complaining of weren't pointing at
> git.postgresql.org, but various private servers or wiki pages.)
Agreed.
...Robert
