On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 05:54, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
>> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be moot, but that
>> >> doesn't seem to be ready to happen.
>>
>> > What still needs to happen on this? Clearly this would be a post-8.5
>> > (or whatever the new release number is) thing, but apart from that?
>>
>> AFAIR, we still weren't convinced that we had a 100% conversion method
>> (ie something that would preserve all the history) and there were still
>> questions about how to work with multi-branch patches most effectively.
>> I don't recall where the previous discussion died off exactly, but
>> it definitely wasn't at the "we're ready to do it" stage.
>
> Somebody did a pull of all the tags, and some of them were missing files
> and failed to build.
That was from the current git mirror.
To re-itarate yet again, what I believe has been said many times before:
There are two ways to get from cvs to git.
The first one is reliable (at least from what I've heard). But it only
supports one-off migrations. It doesn't support incremental changes.
It was confused by some things that were plain broken in our cvs
repository way back (this happens with cvs, as we all know), but AFAIK
they have been fixed.
The second one supports incremental changes. And has issues with
back-branches. This is the one we are using.
If/when we are moving the main repository, we should use the first
one. Yes, this will invalidate all current git clones out there, but
that's a one-time cost. Will there be issues? Possibly. But we're
*never* going to get something that's *guaranteed* 100% safe, not when
going from something like CVS...
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
