> Actually yes we did. There was a bug in git-cvs that we fixed. Its is
> talked about here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2008-12/msg00182.php
>
> But... that wasn't really the fault of git.
OK, but that's in the past now - good. I thought Tom was saying that
it might need to be done again.
> There are specific problems with git that people should be aware of
> before we start the idea of migrating full to it. The most bothersome to
> me is that you must check out the ENTIRE repo. It isn't possible to say:
I agree. It's possible that this might change in the future - git has
come a long way in a short time. But I'm not betting on it.
> 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
would be pretty nice.
...Robert
