On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Monday 29 December 2008 19:09:23 Daniel Farina wrote:
>> One interesting exercise would be to run git with cvsserver and try
>> porting commits via script from Postgres CVS to git cvsserver.
>
> But to do that you would be back at cvsps to extract the actual commits from
> the CVS repository, which is a major part of the current problem in the first
> place. And by the time you're done, you'd likely have re-implemented
> git-cvsimport with an extra level of indirection.
>
This is true as long as one is using some extra machinery to convert from
vanilla CVS to Git (and thus served through cvsserver). The goal would be to
shed those eventually and have CVS users just commit to Git's cvsserver. I only
suggested exercising through cvsserver to make sure it works 'as advertised,'
for Postgres' purposes, making a convincing argument that anyone who wanted to
operate via CVS for a while would not be adversely affected.
There's also a benefit for the committers who would *like* to use Git being
able to take advantage of its features in that scenario. As-is just fixing
cvsps (and cvsimport) doesn't provide an incremental strategy for switching to
Git for the purposes of writes to the repository.
fdr