Re: Moving to git
| От | Dave Cramer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Moving to git |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADK3HHLdZs+NBaAZOG1SK6ubEYkHR1QBQBz+wU4Dwh9D6aZ77w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Moving to git (Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda@truviso.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Moving to git
Re: Moving to git |
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
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 ? Dave
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: