On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'm still not sure who is going to take responsibility for fixing the
>> git tree we have now. I don't think it's going to work for us to
>> leave it broken until we're ready to do "the cutover", and then do one
>> monolithic move. If the tools we're using to do the import now have
>> broken our tree, then we need to fix it, and them. Ideally I'd like
>> to get a bi-directional conversion working, so that committers could
>> commit via either CVS or GIT during the transition, but I'm not sure
>> whether that's feasible.
>
> I fear the latter is probably pie in the sky, unfortunately --- to take
> just one minor point, which commit timestamp is authoritative?
That's just a question of deciding on a date when git becomes
authoritative and CVS ceases to be.
> I think
> we will have to make a clean cutover from "CVS is authoritative" to
> "CVS is dead and git is authoritative", and do a fresh repository
> conversion at that instant. What we should be doing to get prepared for
> that is testing various conversion tools to see which one gives us the
> best conversion. And fixing anything in the CVS repository that is
> preventing getting a sane conversion.
That might work, but then we better be pretty darn confident that that
"fresh conversion" is actually correct. I'd rather have them going
side-by-side so that we can verify everything before shutting the old
system off.
> The existing git mirror is an unofficial service and is not going to be
> the basis of the future authoritative repository. Folks who have cloned
> it will have to re-clone. Sorry about that, but maintaining continuity
> with that repository is just too far down the list of priorities
> ... especially when we already know it's broken.
>
> I am hoping that git's cvs server emulation is complete enough that you
> can commit through it --- anybody know? But that will be just a
> stopgap.
>
> BTW, can anyone comment on whether and how we can maintain the current
> split between master repository (that's not even accessible to
> non-committers) and a public mirror? If only from a standpoint of
> security paranoia, I'd rather like to preserve that split, but I don't
> know how well git will play with it.
You can set up one repository to mirror another.
...Robert
