On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 14:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Actually yes we did. There was a bug in git-cvs that we fixed. Its is > > talked about here:
> > Actually the work is relatively minimal as we have git infrastructure in > > place. The larger problem is: > > > > What is the problem we are trying to solve? > > Does git actually solve it? > > I think the problems it would solve for us are (1) emailing huge > patches around sucks (it sucks unnecessarily because of the > mailing-list size limit, but even if someone fixes that, it still > sucks), (2) no need for a CVS-to-GIT conversion that may incur dirty > reads; (3) retention of history and authorship when merging patches > into core. It's possible that it might change our workflow in other > ways too, but even if we got only those three things I think that O.k. now the second part :) Does bzr, mecurial or monotone offer the same or better solution? Bzr in particular is in very wide use and I run into mecurial all the time. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers