On 08/09/10 00:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Well, as Max says downthread, cvs -r REL8_4_STABLE -d
>>> INTERMEDIATE_DATE apparently shows the file as being there, which is a
>>> fairly good argument for his position.
>>
>> I ha
On 08/09/10 00:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> And, I've just tracked down that this bug was apparently fixed in CVS
>> 1.11.18, released November 2004.
>
> Hrm, what bug exactly? As far as I've gathered from the discussion,
> this is a fundament
On 07/09/10 23:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> No doubt. However, the facts on the ground are that it.po is provably
> not there in REL8_4_0, REL8_4_1, REL8_4_2, or REL8_4_3, and is there in
> REL8_4_4, and that no commit on the branch touched it before 2010-05-13
> (just before 8.4.4). I will be intereste
On 07/09/10 23:20, Max Bowsher wrote:
> On 07/09/10 23:15, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, why is this commit shown as being a predecessor of refs/tags/REL8_4_4
>>> and not refs/tags/REL8_4_3? That's nothing to do
On 07/09/10 23:15, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, why is this commit shown as being a predecessor of refs/tags/REL8_4_4
>> and not refs/tags/REL8_4_3? That's nothing to do with it.po, perhaps,
>> but it sure looks wrong. (Magnus, did you check agains
On 07/09/10 21:25, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 22:06, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
You're saying you don't "require" a fix on the latest issue here? Or
should we
On 07/09/10 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What I'd like is for those commits to vanish from the git log entirely.
>
>> It seems to me that in your case such commits could be "grafted over":
>
>> *---*---*---*
>> \
>> A---B---C---D
>
On 07/09/10 16:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> Personally, the idea of trying to use git-filter-branch to make what
>> cvs2git currently gives you more sensible scares me silly.
>
> I'm not excited about it either --- but if Magnus wants to ex
On 07/09/10 16:21, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
If you want to try, and it doesn't take much time, go for it. I was
just saying I wouldn't complain if we decide to li
On 05/09/10 03:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Can you post the repo you ended up with somewhere?
>>
>> Well, it's a Bazaar repository at the moment :-)
>>
>> But, I'll re-run it targetting git, and
On 04/09/10 12:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> and the result is that things are looking pretty clean :-)
>
> Hey, that's great. But I wonder why Magnus got a different result.
This is the first time I've posted these inca
On 03/09/10 03:34, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Michael Haggerty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> What weirdness, exactly, are you discussing now? I've lost track of
>>>>>&g
On 02/09/10 16:44, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 02/09/10 14:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Michael Haggerty
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> What weirdness, exactly, are you
On 02/09/10 14:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Michael Haggerty
>> wrote:
>>> What weirdness, exactly, are you discussing now? I've lost track of
>>> which problem(s) are still unresolved.
>>
>> Lots of commits that look like this:
>>
>> commit
On 25/08/10 16:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> On 25/08/10 04:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What seemed more likely to be artifacts were these:
>>>
>>> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.44.2
>>> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.51.2
>>> remote
On 25/08/10 12:36, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25/08/10 14:03, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 25/08/10 09:18, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Robert Haas writes:
>>>>> There are also a number of commits tha
On 25/08/10 04:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> What seemed more likely to be artifacts were
> these:
>
> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.44.2
> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.51.2
> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.59.2
> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.87.2
> remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.90.2
>
On 25/08/10 01:15, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> My guess at this point is that there may be a (very old?) version of cvs
>> which, when adding a file to a branch, actually misrecorded the file as
>> having existed on the branch f
On 25/08/10 09:18, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> 2. Any non-ASCII characters in, for example, contributor's names show
>>> up differently in the two repos. Generally, the original repo is OK
>>> and the new repo is garbled; al
On 20/08/10 19:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> My guess at this point is that there may be a (very old?) version of cvs
>> which, when adding a file to a branch, actually misrecorded the file as
>> having existed on the branch from the moment it was first add
On 20/08/10 19:54, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
>>> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
>>> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual
On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Max Bowsher writes:
>>>>> The history that cvs2svn is a
On 20/08/10 19:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:56, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>> On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>> O
On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Max Bowsher writes:
>>> The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
>>
>>> 1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
>
On 20/08/10 14:36, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I believe Robert had some comments/questions as well :-)
>
> What Magnus means is that I'm a grumpy old developer who complains
> about everything.
>
> Anyway, what I noticed was that we're getting
On 20/08/10 18:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
>
>> 1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
>> did *not* exist.
>
>> 2) Later, it was added to trunk.
>
On 20/08/10 21:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
>>>> problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
&g
On 20/08/10 12:02, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:49, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 19/08/10 10:35, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:00, Michael Haggerty
>>> wrote:
>>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>> Is
t;>> impossible and we need to look at another tool?
>>
>> The good news: (I just reminded myself/realized that) Max Bowsher has
>> already implemented pretty much exactly what you want in the cvs2svn
>> trunk version, including noting in the commit messages any cherry-p
On 20/08/10 12:55, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 13:50, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I have run cvs2git on the pgsql module of your CVS locally (is that the
>> right thing to convert?) if you'd like to compare notes on specific
>> parts of the conversion.
&g
30 matches
Mail list logo
