On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I'm still not sure who is going to take responsibility for fixing the >> git tree we have now. I don't think it's going to work for us to >> leave it broken until we're ready to do "the cutover", and then do one >> monolithic move. If the tools we're using to do the import now have >> broken our tree, then we need to fix it, and them. Ideally I'd like >> to get a bi-directional conversion working, so that committers could >> commit via either CVS or GIT during the transition, but I'm not sure >> whether that's feasible. > > I fear the latter is probably pie in the sky, unfortunately --- to take > just one minor point, which commit timestamp is authoritative?
That's just a question of deciding on a date when git becomes authoritative and CVS ceases to be. > I think > we will have to make a clean cutover from "CVS is authoritative" to > "CVS is dead and git is authoritative", and do a fresh repository > conversion at that instant. What we should be doing to get prepared for > that is testing various conversion tools to see which one gives us the > best conversion. And fixing anything in the CVS repository that is > preventing getting a sane conversion. That might work, but then we better be pretty darn confident that that "fresh conversion" is actually correct. I'd rather have them going side-by-side so that we can verify everything before shutting the old system off. > The existing git mirror is an unofficial service and is not going to be > the basis of the future authoritative repository. Folks who have cloned > it will have to re-clone. Sorry about that, but maintaining continuity > with that repository is just too far down the list of priorities > ... especially when we already know it's broken. > > I am hoping that git's cvs server emulation is complete enough that you > can commit through it --- anybody know? But that will be just a > stopgap. > > BTW, can anyone comment on whether and how we can maintain the current > split between master repository (that's not even accessible to > non-committers) and a public mirror? If only from a standpoint of > security paranoia, I'd rather like to preserve that split, but I don't > know how well git will play with it. You can set up one repository to mirror another. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
