Re: Moving to git

> To what extent is *perfect* history reproduction required for PgJDBC?

Well, it's not about "perfect"--CVS and git are different systems and
having the exact same semantics in both is not feasible (e.g., CVS's
lack of atomic commits). But in general, this *is* a very good
question: what would be the criteria for a transition? E.g., how would
we handle something like the keyword expansion discussion that Mike
linked? Because ancestry dictates commit hashes, fixing something like
this after the fact would be a nightmare. Also, should this be the new
go-to repo for *all* history, or is there any reason to keep CVS
around for "archival" versions? I believe a git transition should
support all history just fine and the old CVS repo could be mothballed
(or set up to mirror git), but I could be missing something.

Also, how would we validate the transition? E.g., something like
passing the (tagged) test suite for each tag (on all
supported-at-the-time Java versions?) could be a first step (assuming
the suite from CVS passes, but I would hope that's a safe assumption),
and probably some source-level diffs against corresponding CVS
checkouts. That's easy enough to script and should give us a fair
amount of confidence in the move.

---
Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso

1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 242-3500 Main
www.truviso.com