Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We should assume this will be less buggy?
> Well, actually yes -- the git-to-cvs mechanism is integrated in Git,
> whereas the cvs-to-git mirror is a rather unsupported hack.
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-cvsserver.html
I quote from that page:
>>> It is highly functional. However, not all methods are implemented,
>>> and for those methods that are implemented, not all switches are
>>> implemented.
>>> Testing has been done using both the CLI CVS client, and the Eclipse
>>> CVS plugin. Most functionality works fine with both of these clients.
This is the project's *own* description of its level of
completeness/reliability. Warm fuzzy feelings it does not leave me
with.
I'm prepared to believe that core git is reasonably well debugged by
now, but I have little confidence in its ability to interact with cvs
in either direction. It doesn't look like upstream has put much work
into getting the bugs out of that. (There's no reason to think they
would care much about it...) If we make that transition I think it
will have to be all-or-nothing.
> Something you will definitively not like about Git is that we will lose
> the $PostgreSQL$ expansion stuff -- and there's no equivalent
> functionality AFAIK.
Well, that particular thing always struck me as something we did because
we could, not because there was any important requirement for it.
regards, tom lane