Re: Moving to git

On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 11:28 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda@truviso.com> wrote:
> >> PS: Does it really matter if the history is a bit altered by the
> >> conversion process? As long as HEAD and the tags are the same?
> >
> > I think we can tolerate some minor discrepancies, but we do want
> >
> > 1. Diff-free HEAD, tags, and tips of branches
> > 2. A sensible-looking development history that represents more or less
> > what happened in CVS
> >
> > If we only pay attention to (1), we lose too much information, since,
> > e.g., development history can be critical in determining when a bug
> > was introduced and what releases it affects.
> >
> >> The history could be kept in a read-only cvs-repository :-)
> >
> > Or we could keep a git mirror and you submit patches that are applied
> > to the CVS repo, which you then pull into your repo through
> > git-cvsimport once they're committed. There are all sorts of technical
> > tricks we can play, but I think the goal is to minimize that, and
> > essentially have a git repo representing the entire development
> > history as if pgjdbc had been using git from day one.
> >
> > ---
> > Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso
> >
> > 1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
> > Foster City, CA 94404
> > (650) 242-3500 Main
> > www.truviso.com
> >
>
>
>
> Are we at a state where this is workable ?

I think that either my conversion (the simple one.) is good to go. It
could be nice to look at the merge-history and see if the tagging /
branching is sensible in gitx og gitk.

On the other side, I have not looked at Marko's conversion, but I
pressume that it works as well. (Or maybe better.)

Regards,

Kny