On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> BTW, if we ever convert to git altogether as a project, we'd probably use
> something else again for the conversion. Many people recommend cvs2git on
> the git mailing lists. We can't use it for the mirror because it doesn't
> support incremental updates, but for a one-off conversion it's probably the
> best option.
>
Do you have any sentiments on how good git-cvsserver is?
Synopsis: basically git can run as a CVS server, allowing for both
read and write access, in addition to being a git repository. Some of
the more advanced functionality (tagging, branching) may have to be
done with a git client, though.
By its own description in the man pages, git cvsserver is 'highly
functional'. I don't know what that means, but since nobody is trying
to sell me anything it seems like it could be true.
One interesting exercise would be to run git with cvsserver and try
porting commits via script from Postgres CVS to git cvsserver. If that
worked convincingly for a while, perhaps the committers wouldn't mind
switching the CVS backend since daily life would not have to change
drastically at any one point in time.
fdr
