Re: missing file in git repo

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 16:03, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:
> * Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> [100503 09:02]:
>>
>
>> I can probably pull together a script that exports from both git and cvs
>> and compares.
>
> HINT:  It's all been done and posted to -hackers before too... Along
> with comparisons on on whte "one-time" conversions fare (parsecvs,
> cvs2svn/git), etc, as well as long discussion on which keyword you want
> expanded, and which you don't, etc. bla bla bla...

Yeah, that's the one I was referring to in my earlier mail.


> Not to rain on anyone's git-parade, I'm a huge git fan, but until the
> busy committers, like Tom, Bruce, Heikki, Robert, Andrew, Simon, Alvaro,
> (and all the rest I'm missing or don't know how to spell of the top of
> my head) actually *all use* git (and by use, I really mean use, not just
> copy-n-paste from some "howto mimic CVS with git" guide), any "planned"
> switch is just asking for a huge backlash of "it doesn't work like it
> used to", and bitter complaints...

A lot of the people you just listed use git already. In fact, most of
them do. (Not in commit volume though, since AFAIK Tom doesn't).


> So, for those of you trying to "plan" the conversion to git, I'ld really
> recommend you start working with the other committers, and get them
> "using" git...  Show them how much it makes their current CVS committing
> easier even... Let them see what git can do *for* them (and for everyone
> else too).  And then I suspect you'll find that this whole "switch" will

Been there, done that, with at least a few ;)

The thing we've always agreed upon is to at least start by migrating
something that's as close to our current workflow as possible to git,
and *then* consider changing anything in the workflow. We're not going
to change both at once. For example, we are *definitely* going to keep
with posting patches on the mailinglist during any such switch, and
not go to the whole pull-from-each-others-repositories method that git
likes. Nor are we going to use that insane "let's send every single
git revision as one email causing a single patch to be a whole bunch
of sequentially numbered emails" method ;)

> If you want, I know a guy in Ottawa that does really fantastic git
> presentations...  He's done them to many of the local *UGs, Is there
> interest from the core committers in getting one done at PGcon?

While I appreciate the offer, that's not really the problem, I think.
In fact, people who really know git tend to talk a lot about the
advanced workflows that git will let you do - something we
specifically *don't* want (at this time), and often comes across as an
oversell.

-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/