tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post4314780563700007707..comments2024-03-28T00:58:29.187-04:00Comments on Robert Haas: So, Why Isn't PostgreSQL Using Git Yet?Robert Haashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08393677427643988650noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-73459953761067792832010-09-13T17:35:40.393-04:002010-09-13T17:35:40.393-04:00It is important to have the complete history in Gi...It is important to have the complete history in Git. If the CVS version should be fixed up first to make this cleaner, so be it. The CVS version should also be kept around for awhile as a backup, but a redundant one.Darren Duncanhttp://www.muldis.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-71481435063033746882010-09-13T04:10:22.456-04:002010-09-13T04:10:22.456-04:00I did the CVS to git migration to OpenAFS.
One o...I did the CVS to git migration to OpenAFS. <br /><br />One of our key requirements was to preserve revision history. We already have a year zero (we have no history before IBM open sourced the code) and were determined to avoid another. When it comes to tracing bugs and determining why things are the way they are in such a large, long lived, project, history is vital in our experience.<br /><br />In terms of your migration, good luck. I ended up taking some existing tools (cvsps, particularly), modifying them to suite the way we'd used CVS, and writing a perl constraint solver to sort out the final commit ordering. It wasn't much fun.sxwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123417989091884779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-76756941775007599072010-09-12T23:52:18.066-04:002010-09-12T23:52:18.066-04:00The Drupal project is also moving from CVS to git....The Drupal project is also moving from CVS to git. Maybe you should have a look at what they did.mupSatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-56290733095435485652010-09-12T15:48:37.660-04:002010-09-12T15:48:37.660-04:00keithb is right. Keep the old repo as is and copy...keithb is right. Keep the old repo as is and copy the head of the new repo into git. It's a no-brainer.Seun Osewahttp://www.seunosewa.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-74094175156706123772010-09-12T11:34:25.981-04:002010-09-12T11:34:25.981-04:00There were a significant number of problems in the...There were a significant number of problems in the "recent" history, so even if we were willing to drop ancient history, we'd still have work to do to have an acceptable git conversion.Tom Lanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-43463261916657937302010-09-12T10:26:44.225-04:002010-09-12T10:26:44.225-04:00From a blog post elsewhere on Git by an X develope...From <a href="http://who-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html" rel="nofollow">a blog post</a> elsewhere on Git by an X developer: "It's come to the point where the most annoying X server bugs are the ones where the git history stops at the original import from XFree86." That's why to get the whole history.<br /><br />The X.org case is a little bit weird, in that I suspect they didn't have the cooperation of xfree86.org in migrating it all in, and that's made ongoing development more difficult.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-64218140399474884092010-09-12T10:03:45.657-04:002010-09-12T10:03:45.657-04:00We've had the same question asked at NetBSD (w...We've had the same question asked at NetBSD (we're still on CVS), by both git people and subversion people.<br /><br />History is valuable information. FSF projects often put changelog text into the codebase itself, but BSD projects usually dislike this. That could affect how often people want to go to the VCS history.<br /><br />Putting in any barriers to convenience that make it harder to look at the history is detrimental to development, in the same way that making documentation difficult to access is bad.<br /><br />I think in a closed-source environment, people are often focused on 'the next release' - and history matters less. In long term projects like NetBSD and PostgreSQL history is important for understanding the intent behind other developers' changes, and for maintaining consistency with past behavior.David Maxwellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038672.post-78018601195422269842010-09-12T07:57:51.882-04:002010-09-12T07:57:51.882-04:00Why do you feel that you have to move the whole hi...Why do you feel that you have to move the whole history to git?<br /><br />My experience of several (commercial, closed-source) teams moving respectable sized codebases from one repo technology to another is that so long as you don't delete nor decommission the old repo you're fine. <br /><br />Bring the recent history of the active branches across and let anyone who wants deep history go to the old repo.keithbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314542307822401015noreply@blogger.com