Re: Git out of sync vs. CVS

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:52, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 16:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:53, Kevin Grittner
>>>> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>>>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the Git repository is missing parts of two non-recent commits.
>>>>>> We've seen this happen before.
>>>>> That seems like kind of a blasé attitude toward something upon which
>>>>> some people rely.
>>>> For the record, I am one of those people. I use it for *all* my
>>>> postgresql development. And this is a serious pain.
>>> FWIW, I am in favor of rewinding and making everyone rebase, but I
>>> think we should do it ASAP.
>> Ok, I started looking at this.
>>
>> First, it's not at all clear to me what Peter means wiht his comments.
>> But it happens to be that one of the commits he's referring to is all
>> the way back in August. So we'd have to rewind it all that way. Do we
>> really want to do that, or do we want to do a manual commit on the
>> repository bringing it back in sync instead? (either by knowing what's
>> wrong with those commits, or do a complete diff of cvs head vs git
>> head)
>
> Actually, such a correction patch would be nice and short. Attached
> for reference. Thoughts?

That seems better than rewinding the history all the way back to August.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com