Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 18:13, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I despaired of this repo being anything like reliable months ago.
>>>> AFAIK it is using a known to be broken version of fromcvs.
>>>>
>>> Could we have it pull (using git) from the repo you have working
>>> correctly? (Or would that be too Rube Goldbergesque?)
>>>
>> It would result in a massive merge commit and the duplication of the
>> entire history. The correct solution is probably to (a) install
>> Andrew's fixed version of the import tool on the server and (b) rewind
>> the history on the server so it reimports all the subsequent commits.
>> Sometimes doing only (b) is sufficient to correct the problem, since
>> the tool seems rather sensitive to ephemeral states of the
>> respository.
>>
>> Unfortunately, (a) has not happened. Magnus seems to feel that Andrew
>> has not provided sufficient details about which version he should be
>> running and whether it will likely break anything, and I gather that
>> Andrew feels otherwise. Figuring out who is right and who is wrong
>> and what to do about it is above my pay grade, but it would be really
>> nice if someone could get this straightened out.
>>
>
> Meh, who cares who's right or wrong :-)
>
> My main point is I am unsure if this may have any adverse effects, and
> I haven't had the time to investigate if it doesor not. Previously
> we've just applied a manual correction patch to bring the branch tip
> up to the correct state, which is supposedly good enough for the users
> of the git server. In which case, someone just needs to proide said
> patch :-)
>
>
Given that the repo's remaining lifetime is measured in weeks, that
seems reasonable.
cheers
andrew