Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Markus Wanner wrote:
>> Quoting "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan@highrise.ca>:
>>> This has been raised and ignored many times before on -hackers... The
>>> reason is because the tags in the CVS repository are "broken"
>> Please keep in mind that the amount of "brokenness" here depends a lot
>> on the tool used for the conversion to git. AFAIK 'git cvsimport' is
>> used for the conversion of the Postgres repository to git. git-cvsimport
>> uses cvsps, which is known for its deficiencies.
>
> No, we use fromcvs, not "git cvsimport".
>
> IIRC that was the only one people could make working with incremental
> updates.
Right. When I looked at the converters last time, there was others that
produce a better conversion, but they didn't work incrementally. If
we're going to switch over the main repository, we should look at the
alternatives.
OTOH, there's some value in staying with current GIT repository. In
EnterpriseDB, we maintain all the Oracle-compatibility stuff in a GIT
repository that's based on the PostgreSQL mirror. If PostgreSQL switches
to a new GIT repository/mirror, I'll have to rebase all that, and I'm
not sure how well that works with all the merges and stuff. I'm probably
the one with most complex situation, but others who have
work-in-progress patches in local repositories will face the same issue
at a smaller scale.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com