Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
* Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> [100503 09:02]:
I can probably pull together a script that exports from both git and cvs
and compares.
HINT: It's all been done and posted to -hackers before too... Along
with comparisons on on whte "one-time" conversions fare (parsecvs,
cvs2svn/git), etc, as well as long discussion on which keyword you want
expanded, and which you don't, etc. bla bla bla...
Not to rain on anyone's git-parade, I'm a huge git fan, but until the
busy committers, like Tom, Bruce, Heikki, Robert, Andrew, Simon, Alvaro,
(and all the rest I'm missing or don't know how to spell of the top of
my head) actually *all use* git (and by use, I really mean use, not just
copy-n-paste from some "howto mimic CVS with git" guide), any "planned"
switch is just asking for a huge backlash of "it doesn't work like it
used to", and bitter complaints...
So, for those of you trying to "plan" the conversion to git, I'ld really
recommend you start working with the other committers, and get them
"using" git... Show them how much it makes their current CVS committing
easier even... Let them see what git can do *for* them (and for everyone
else too). And then I suspect you'll find that this whole "switch" will
suddenly not be a big issue... The whole "find the perfect conversion"
isn't even needed... In fact, they might even realize why Linus's
method for the switch to git for the linux kernel is often the best (if
not right) approach...
If you want, I know a guy in Ottawa that does really fantastic git
presentations... He's done them to many of the local *UGs, Is there
interest from the core committers in getting one done at PGcon?
I am giving a talk in Ottawa on using git with Postgres. Feel free to
come and correct all my errors if you're going to be there. That is why
I have been talking about it a lot, both here and on my blog. I am
currently working on some stuff that would have been significantly
easier if we actually had a working git repository for all the live back
branches (something I do have now, I think - fingers crossed).
I have also been working on making the buildfarm client work with git,
one of the hurdles we need to jump over.
The fact that we are being cautious about this annoys the heck out of
some people. I'm sorry, but that's just the way we tend to work. If we
hadn't been so cautious a year or two back when git was much less
mature, we'd probably be using Subversion now and any move to git would
probably not even be on the table. Pushing us on this probably won't
help the cause. More likely it will get people's backs up. And I'm not
sure about the wisdom of using the Linux Kernel as an example of good
software practice either.
And let it also be noted that git has some warts too. I've seen plenty
of complaints about its command set and I've had one or two substantial
complaints myself. If we were going on pure technical merit I'm not at
all sure git would win the contest for a new SCM system for Postgres. I
am not trying to start a debate on the relevant merits of various SCM
systems, but just trying to keep things in perspective. Moving to
something like git will help us a bit. Sometimes (not that often, I
suspect) it will help more than a bit. None of that is to say we
shouldn't move to git.
Also, if you're working on features, you can use git now, and ignore CVS
completely. As far as we know the existing git mirror is quite sane and
reliable, on all branches from 8.2 up. That accounts for 99% of
developers - the number of people doing anything on versions 7.4 to 8.1
is minuscule.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
