Re: git: uh-oh

Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ago 18 13:10:19 -0400 2010:

> I think what is frustrating is that we have a mental image of what the
> history looks like in CVS based on what we actually do, and it doesn't
> look anything like the history that cvs2git created. You can to all
> kinds of crazy things in CVS, like tag the whole tree and then move
> the tags on half a dozen individual files forward or backward in time,
> or delete the tags off them altogether. But we believe (perhaps
> naively) that we haven't done those things, so we're expecting to get
> a simple linear history without merges, and definitely without commits
> from one branch jumping into the midst of other branches.

In fact, we went some lengths to remove some of the more problematic
artifacts in our original CVS repository, so that a Git conversion
wouldn't have a problem with them. It's disappointing that it ends up
punting in this manner.

I do welcome the offer of Michael's development time to solve our
problems.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support